LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. 



UNITED STATES OF AM: 



INTRODUCTION TO THE TALMUD. 



HISTORICAL AND LITERARY INTRODUCTION. 



LEGAL HERMENEUTICS OF THE TALMUD. 



TALMUDICAL TERMINOLOGY and METHODOLOGY. 



OUTLINES OF TALMUDICAL ETHICS. 



APPENDIX. 

Key to the Abbreviations used in the Talmud 
and its Commentaries. 




B Y 



M. MIELZINER, PH. D., 
it ' 

Professor of Talmud at the Hebrew Union College. 







AUG 2: 



#Z 



The American Hebrew Publishing House. 

THE BLOCH PRINTING COMPANY 

-CINCINNATI — and — CHICAGO. 

1894. 






-5=C 






Copyrighted by 
M. MIELZINER, PH. D. 

1894. 



INSCRIBED 

TO THE 

B LESSED MEMORY 

OF MY 

Beloved Brother 
EPHRAIM MIELZINER 

LATE OF THORN, GERMANY. 



PREFACE. 



The Talmud is undoubtedly one of the most remarkable 
literary productions of antiquity. In its twelve folio volumes 
it embodies the mental labors of the ancient Jewish teachers 
during a period of about eight hundred years. The attention 
of these teachers was directed particularly to expounding 
and developing the religious, moral and civil law of the Bible. 
The pages of this great work are, besides, replete with 
wise observations, ethical maxims, beautiful legends and 
parables, and exegetical explanations. We also find in it 
valuable historical and ethnographical material, as well as 
occasional references to the various branches of ancient know- 
ledge and science. 

The Talmud is also remarkable for the powerful influence 
it exerted upon the thought and life of the Jews during the 
Middle Ages, yes, even down to quite recent times. Its 
authority was second only to that of the Bible. Although 
modern Jews have emancipated themselves more or less 
from its authority, the Talmud still remains a venerable 
literary monument of a great and important epoch in the 
development of Judaism. At the same time, it is a valuable 
source of religious and ethical doctrines as well as of scientific 
investigation. 

In our day, quite a general interest in this literary monu- 
ment of antiquity is being awakened. This increasing inter- 
est is manifested not only by the publication of numerous 
works and monographs on Talmudical topics, but also by the 



vi Preface. 

fact that several universities and colleges abroad and in this 
country have established chairs for the study of this special 
branch of literature. 

The present work which I have called "Introduction to the 
Talmud" is the result of many years' labor and of a long experi- 
ence as professor of the Talmudical branches at the Hebrew 
Union College. It is intended to facilitate the exceedingly 
difficult study of an intricate subject. It is the first comprehen- 
sive work of its kind in the English language, yes, it might be 
said, in any modern language, if we except Prof. Herman L. 
Strack's "Einleitung in den Talmud", a book which, though 
treating our subject with scientific exactness and impartiality, 
was not intended to cover the whole ground as is attempted in 
the present publication. 

Earlier works of this kind, from the eleventh century down 
to our time, have been written in Hebrew or rather in the Rab- 
binical idiom, and hence are accessible to Rabbinical scholars 
only. Valuable literary material, the result of keen critical 
research into our subject, has been published by some modern 
scholars, among whom may be named the late Z. Frankel, and 
I. H. Weiss.' The results reached by these scholars have 
been duly considered in our "Historical and Literary Intro- 
duction". 

Regarding the second and third parts of this work, 
I had to rely almost entirely on my own researches. The 
only modern work on Talmudical Hermeneutics is Dr. H. S. 
Hirschfeld's "Halachische Exegese". But the usefulness of this 
learned work is greatly impaired by the fact that, 



1 The literature on this subject is given further on in the chapter 
Auxiliaries to the study of the Talmud" pp. 83—85. 



Preface. vii 

the author cast it into a philosophical form to ' which the 
subject-matter does not readily lend itself. 

It has been my endeavor to present the methods of the Tal- 
mudical interpretation ol* the Bible in the proper light. The 
application of the various hermeneutical rules is illustrated by 
numerous examples which have been carefully selected,and which 
will afford the student an opportunity of becoming familiar with 
some of the peculiarities of the Talmudical Law. 

Part III of this Introduction is the first attempt at present- 
ing the Methodology and Terminology of the Talmud in a 
strictly systematical way. It is, to some extent, an exposition 
of the Dialectics of the Rabbis, an analysis of their discussions 
and debates. The references and examples added to each ofthe 
technical terms and phrases show their prevalence in all sections 
ofthe Talmud. I may be pardoned in entertaining the hope that 
this portion of my work will be found a reliable guide through 
the labyrinth of Talmudical discussions. 

The appended treatise "Outlines of Talmudical Ethics" is 
essentially the contents of my paper on that subject read at the 
World's Parliament of Religions in Chicago. 

The alphabetical Register of the principal Tanaim and Amo- 
raim, the Index of technical Terms and Phrases, and the "Key 
to the Abbreviations used in the Talmud and its commentaries 1 ' 
will, I hope, add to the usefulness Oi this work. 

Cincinnati, March, 1894. 

THE A UTHOR, 



TABLE OK CONTENTS. 

PART I. 
HISTORICAL AND LITERARY INTRODUCTION. 

Page. 
THE TALMUD AND ITS COMPONENT PARTS. 3 

CHAPTER I. THE MISHNA. 

Its Origin, Compilation and Division. 
Order of Succession, Names and General 
Contents of its 63 Tracts. Language of 
the Mishna. ------ 4-16 

CHAPTER II. WORKS KINDRED TO THE MISHNA. 

Tosephta, Mechilta, Siphra, Siphre ; Frag- 
mentary Baraithoth. - 17-21 

CHAPTER III. THE AUTHORITIES OF THE MISHNA. 

The Sopherim, the " Zugoth," the Tanaim. 
The six Generations of the latter. Char- 
acteristics and Biographical Sketches of 
the principal Tanaim. - 22-39 

CHAPTER IV. THE EXPOUNDERS OF THE MISHNA. 

Palestinian and Babylonian Amoraim. 
Their Division into Generations. Bio- 
graphical Sketches of the principal Amo- 
raim. -_.---. 40-55 

CHAPTER Y. THE GEMARA. 

Classification of its Contents into Halacha 
and Agada. Compilation of the Palastinian 
and the Babylonian Gemara. The two 
Gemaras compared with each other. - 56-62 

CHAPTER VI. APOCRYPHAL APPENDICES TO THE 

TALMUD. ------ 63-64 

CHAPTER VII. COMMENTARIES ON THE TALMUD. 

A. On the Babylonian Talmud. B. Exclu- 
sively on the Mishna. C. On the Palesti- 
nian Talmud. 61-71 



X. TABLE OP CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER Till. EPITOMES AND CODIFICATIONS. 

A. Compendiums of the Talmud, by Alfasi 
and by Asher b. Jechiel. B. The Codes, by 
Maimonides, by Moses of Coucy, by Jacob b. 
Asher and by Joseph Karo. C. Collections 
of the Agadic Portions of the Talmud. 

CHAPTER IX. MANUSCRIPTS AND PRINTED EDI- 
TIONS. ------ 



Page. 



72-76 



CHAPTER X. AUXILIARIES TO THE STUDY OF THE 
TALMUD. 

A. Lexicons. B. Grammars. C. Chres- 
tomathies. D. Introductory Works, a. 
Older Works, b. Modern Works in He- 
brew, c. Works and Articles in Modern 
Languages, d. Historical Works, e. En- 
cyclopedical Works. /. Some Other Books 
of Reference. ------ 

CHAPTER XI. TRANSLATIONS OF THE TALMUD. 

A. The Mishna. B. The Babylonian. 
C. The Palestinian Talmud. 



81-87. 



88-92 



CHAPTER XII. BIBLIOGRAPHY. 

Modern Works and Monographs on Tal- 
mudical Subjects. ----- 



93-102 



CHAPTER XIII. 1. OPINIONS ON THE VALUE OF THE 

TALMUD. ----- 103-107 



2. WHY STUDY THE TALMUD. 



108-114 



F»ART II. 



LEGAL HERMENEUTICS OF THE TALMUD. 



1. INTRODUCTION. 

Definition. Plain and Artificial Interpre- 
tation. Legal and Homiletical Interpreta- 
tion. ------- 



117-120 



2. ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF ARTIFICIAL IN- 
TERPRETATION. 

HillePs Seven Hermeneutic Rules. A New 
Method, by Nahum. Development of this 
Method, by R. Akiba. The Thirteen Rules 
of R. Ishmael. Literature. - - 120-129 



TABLE OF CONTENTS. 

EXPOSITION OF HERMENEUTIC RULES. 

CHAPTER I. THE INFERENCE FROM MINOR AND 
MAJOR. 



CHAPTER II. 



THE ANALOGY. 

A. Gezera Shava. 

B. Heckesh. 



CHAPTER III. GENERALIZATION OF SPECIAL LAWS. 

CHAPTER IT. THE GENERAL AND THE PARTICULAR. 

CHAPTER Y. MODIFICATIONS OF THE RULE OF 
GENERAL AND PARTICULAR. - 

CHAPTER VI. 1. EXPLANATION FROM THE CONTEXT. 

2. RECONCILIATION OF CONFLICTING 
PASSAGES. - 

CHAPTER VII. ADDITIONAL RULES. 

A. Juxtaposition. B. Restrictions in the 
Application of Analogy. C. Limited or 
Unlimited Effect of an Analogy. D. Refu- 
tation and Reinstatement of Hermeneutic 
Arguments. E. The Theory of Extension 
and Limitation. F. " Mikra " or " Masora." 
Closing Remark. - - 



xr. 
Page. 

130-141 

142-152 
152-155 

156-162 

163-168 

169-173 
174-176 



177-187 



F>ART III. 

TALMUDICAL TERMINOLOGY AND METHODOLOGY. 
Prefatory. ._-_----.. 190 

CHAPTER I. TERMS AND PHRASES REGARDING 
THE STRUCTURE OF A MISHNA 
PARAGRAPH. .... 191-197 

CHAPTER II. MODES OF TREATING AN ANONYMOUS 

MISHNA PARAGRAPH. - - - 198-206 

CHAPTER III. THE GEMARA CRITICISING THE 

MISHNA - 207-215 

CHAPTER IV. DISCUSSING THE DIFFERENCE OF 

OPINION IN A MISHNA. - - 216-219 

CHAPTER V. QUOTING THE MISHNA AND KINDRED 

WORKS. - 220-223 



XII. TABLE OF CONTENTS. 

Page. 

CHAPTER VI. DEFINITION OF AND PHRASES CON- 
CERNING MEMRA. - 224-226 



CHAPTER VII. TREATMENT OF A PLAIN MEMRA. 



227-230 



CHAPTER VIII. 



CHAPTER IX. 



CHAPTER X. 



CHAPTER XI, 



CHAPTER XII. 



TREATMENT OF A MEMRA CONTAIN- 
ING A DIFFERENCE OF OPINION. 231-236 

ASKING AND ANSWERING QUESTIONS. 

Classification: 1. Questions of Investi- 
gation. 2. Questions of Astonishment. 
3. Questions of Objection. Some Special 
Kinds of Objection. The Dilemma. The 
Rejoinder. 4. Questions of Problem and 
Their Solution. 237-246 

ARGUMENTATION. 

1. Terms and Phrases Introducing an 
Argument. 2. Classification of Arguments : 
a. Argument From Common Sense, b. 
Argument From Authority, c. Argument 
From Construction, d. Argument From 
Analogy, e. Argument a fortiori. 3. Indi- 
rect Argumentation. 4. Direct and Indirect 
Arguments Combined. - - 247-253 

REFUTATION. 

Definition and Term«. a. The Refutation 
of a Proposition. ' b. Procedure of Refuting 
the Various Kinds of Arguments. - 254-260 

THE DEBATE. 

Definition and Terms. The Principal De- 
baters. Illustration of a Debate. Anony- 
mous Discussions and Debates. - 261-264 



FWRT IV. 
OUTLINES OF TALMUDICAL ETHICS. 265-280 



Alphabetical Index of Tanaim and Amoraim 
Index of Explained Terms and Phrases. 



281-282 
283-285 



APPENDIX. 

Key to the Abbreviations used in the Talmud 
and its Commentaries. - 



286-292 



INTRODUCTION 

TO THE 

TALMUD 

PART I. 
HISTORICAL AND LITERARY INTRODUCTION. 



THE TALMUD AND ITS COMPONENT PARTS. 

§ I- 

The Talmud is the work which embodies the mentaHabors 
of the ancient Jewish teachers during a period of about eight 
hundred years (from about 300 before, to 500 after, the Christian 
era) in expounding and developing the civil and religious law 
of the Bible. Besides, it contains the theosophical views, ethical 
maxims and exegetical remarks of those teachers; it is inter- 
woven with many valuable historical and ethnographical records 
and occasional references to the different branches of ancient 
knowledge and sciences. 

The Talmud consists of two distinct works, the Mishna, as 
the text, and the Gemara as a voluminous collection of com- 
mentaries and discussions on that text. 

The appellation Talmud, meaning the Study, properly refers 
to the Gemara only, but according to a literary usage establish- 
ed in later times, the name Talmud is applied also to the 
combined work of Mishna and Gemara. ' 

We have two compilations of the Geniara, different from 
each other in language as well as in contents. One originated 
in the Palestinian, and the other in the Babylonian schools. 
The latter is called ^22 YlD^n the Babylonian Talmud, and the 
former ^hV'V TlD^n the Palestinian Talmud. The Mishna 
text in both of them is the same, though occasionally offering 
slight variations. 



1 As a technical term the word "TO^fl was applied by the ancient 
teachers to signify the method of deducing a law from the words of 
Scripture; compare the phrase -)E^ "n^n, Maccoth I, 7, a. o. Sub- 
sequently the word was applied to the discussions of the teachers on 
the Mishna; compare Sanhedrin 24a: ^22 b& miD^D- After the Mishna 
and Gemara had been combined in one work, it became customary 
to use the word as an appellation of the whole work. 



CHAPTER I. 

THE MISHNA. 

Its Origin, Compilation and Name. 
§2. 

The Mishna is the authorized codification of the oral or un- 
written law which, on the basis of the written law contained in 
the Pentateuch, developed during the second Temple and down 
to the end of the second century of the common era. 

The oral law consisted partly of legal traditions and usages 
which had been handed down from time immemorial; partly of 
enactments (DM^DI m^W JYIJpn) of the men of the Great 
Synod or the Sopherim, and subsequently of the Sanhedrin; and 
partly of the laws which proceeded from the discussions and de- 
cisions of the teachers, the Tanaim, in the Palestinian academies, 
established for the purpose of cultivating and transmitting that 
law. Its transmission was, for many centuries, confined to 
verbal communication, as it was considered a religious offence 
to reduce the tradition to. writing. » 

The cultivation of that law consisted mainly in the endeavor 
to found its provisions on a biblical basis and support, and to 
deduce therefrom new provisions for cases not yet provided 
for. This endeavor gave rise to discussions and a frequent con- 
flict of opinions. Also the reports of these conflicting opinions 
were conscientiously preserved in the memory of subsequent 
teachers. Thus, in the course of time, the subject matter of the 
oral law accumulated to an immense bulk which, not yet in any 
way systematized, became almost too heavy to be preserved 
merely by the power of memory. 

The first attempt towards bringing some order and system 
into this chaotic mass of traditions was made by Hillel, president 
of the Sanhedrin in the time of Herod, by arranging it into six 
principal divisions. His attempt was later resumed by the 

1 In order to assist their memory, however, some teachers had 
private scrolls on which they for their own use entered single theses 
of the tr ditional law. Such a scroll was called DnriD nPJD "Secret 
Scroll." 



The Mishna. 5 

celebrated R. Akiba who subdivided the subject matter belonging 
to each of the six divisions, into homogeneous parts. Within 
each part again he grouped the single laws according to their 
inter-connection and according to certain mnemonical consider- 
ations. The work of R. Akiba was continued by his distinguish- 
ed disciple R. Meir who completed the collection and improved 
its formal arrangement. But neither this compilation of R. 
Meir nor similar works of his colleagues succeeded in command- 
ing general recognition, as every teacher in the various academies 
preferred to transmit and expound the accumulated material of 
the law according to a method and arrangement of his own. 

Finally R. Jehuda Hanasi, flourishing towards the end of 
the second century, undertook the great task of establishing a 
general code of the oral law. By virtue of his eminent learning, 
his dignity as Patriarch and as head of a celebrated academy, 
he succeeded in accomplishing this task. Taking the unfinished 
work of R. Akiba and R. Meir as basis, and retaining, in gen- 
eral, its division and arrangement, he examined and sifted the 
whole material of the oral law, and completed it by adding the 
decisions which his academy gave concerning many doubtful 
cases. Unanimously adopted opinions he recorded without the 
names of their authors or transmitters, but where a divergence 
of opinions appeared, the individual opinion is given in the 
name of its author, together with the decision of the prevailing 
majority, or side by side with that of its opponent, and sometimes 
even with the addition of short arguments pro and con. 

Like the former compilations of the oral law, this work of 
R. Jehuda was called Mish?ia. In order to distinguish it from 
that of R. Akiba and R. Meir it was originally designated the 
Mishna of R. Jehuda, but after having been generally accepted 
as the exclusively authorized code of the traditional law, it bears 
the simple name Mishna without any further modification. 1 



1 Whether R. Jehuda Hanasi actually committed his Mishna to 
writing or not, is a question concerning which the scholars of ancient 
as well as of modern times express different opinions. In accordance 
with the principle mentioned in Talm. Gittin 60 b and Temural4b 
in the name of some teachers, that the oral law ought not to be 



6 Historical and Literary Introduction. 

In later years of his life, R. Jehuda revised his work, and 
made several changes. Some additions were made by his dis- 
ciples. 1 

Concerning the etymology and signification of the word 

rtitPD there is a difference of opinion. Some regard it as a 

t: • 
feminine form of the Hebrew word rtttPD (analogous to the double 

form rApft and i"UpD), meaning the second in rank, hence a signi- 

fixation of the work containing the oral law which takes the 
second rank compared with the biblical law; which in considered 
the first. In this sense the word is taken not only by the fathers 
of the Church who rendered it by the term devrepoodis, but also by 
many modern scholars. Others derive it from the verb nJtP to 
repeat, which in new Hebrew, like the Aramaic Sin received 



written down nron p»fc6 ^NBH rWN ^ HD bjDB> 0^31 it is maintained 
by Sherira Gaon (according to one version in his Iggereth), by Rashi in 
his commentary on B. Metzia 33 a and Erubin 62 b, by Tosaphoth on 
Megilla 32 a, and by some other authorities of the Middle Ages that R. 
Jehuda compiled his great Mishna work in his mind without writing 
it down, and that it was transmitted only orally during many gener 
ations, until circumstances in the sixth century made it neccessary to 
commit it to writing. This view is accepted and defended even by 
some modern scholars, as Luzzatto, Rapaport, Jost, Graetz, Leopold 
Loew, and others. 

More plausible is the opposite opinion holding that R. Jehuda 
Hanasi wrote out the Mishna in full. This opinion is shared in the 
Middle Ages by Samuel Hanagid, R. Nissim, R. Abraham b. David. 
Maimonides, and in modern times by Geiger, Frankel, Lebrecht, I. H. 
Weiss, and others. 

The arguments in favor of the former opinion are found in 
Graetz' Geschichte der Juden IV, second edition, p. 494, and in 
Leopold Loew's Graphische Requisiten II, pp. 112-132; the contrary 
arguments in Frankel's Darke Hamischna p. 211: Weiss' Dor Dor III, 
244-248. Compare also Hamburger's Real-Encycl. II, p. 796, and S. 
Adler's Kobetz al Yad, p. 54. 

1 Clear evidences of such additions by later hands are found in the 
^ ast Mishna of Sota, where the death of Rabbi Is mentioned, and in 
the last Mishna of Uk'tzin, where mention is made of R. Joshua b. 
Levi who flourished after Rabbi. As later additions and interpolations 
must also such passages as now 'SI or *3*i n]1 be regarded which oc- 
casionally occur in the context of the Mishna, e. g. Nazir I, 4; IV, 
5; Maccoth I, 8. 



The Mishna. 7 

the meaning, to relate, to teach, to transmit orally. Mishna then 
means the oral teaching, the instruction in the traditional law, in 
contradistinction to tfnpD the reading in the written law of the 
Bible. 

The Division of the Mishna. 
§3. 

The Mishna is divided into six main sections, termed Seda- 
rim ("Orders" or "Series")'. A mnemonical sign of the sequence 
of these sections are the words tDp3 jDT (time he took), formed 
by the initials of their names. 

I. Zeraim CjnT Seeds or productions of the land. This 
section embraces the ritual laws concerning the cultivation of 
the soil and its products. It is introduced by a treatise on 
prayer and benedictions. 

II. Moed iyiD Festival, treats of the laws concerning the 
Sabbath and all festivals. 

III. Nashim q^j Women, regulations concerning marriage 
and divorce. 

IY. Nezikin JWW Damages, embracing a great part of the 
civil and criminal law. 

Y. Kodashim D^BHp Sacred things, treats of the sacrificial 
laws and the temple service. 

YI. Teharoth ni"inCD Purification, the laws concerning the 
clean and unclean. 

Each Seder (section) is subdivided into Masechtoth or treat- 
ises, of which each bears a name indicating its general con- 
tents 2 . 

The Mishna contains in all sixty three Masechtoth. Each 
Masechta is again subdivided into Chapters^ called Perakim, and 
each Perek into paragraphs, of which each is termed Mishna or 

1 On account of this division of the Mishna into six series the whole 
Talmud is signified by the technical term D£> which is an abbreviation 
of the words D^TlD \WW. 

2 The word fDDD or WDDD is probably derived from ~|DJ to 
weave, and means then a web, just as in Latin textus from texere, 
means a web, and then a composition of words and sentences. 



8 Historical and Literary Introduction. 

Halacha. The latter term .for a single paragraph is especially 
used in the Palestinian Talmud. 



Order of Succession, Names and General Contents of 
the masechtqth. 

Concerning the order in which the Maseehtoth belonging to 
every section follow after each other, some difference appears 
between the separate Mishna edition (called Mislmayoth nvWD) 1 
and the arrangement of the Masechtotli as generally adopted in 
the editions of the Babylonian and the Palestinian Talmud. 
This is especially the case in the Sedarimll — VI, while in Seder 
I the order of succession is the same in all editions. 



1 Maimonides in the introduction to his Mishna commentary 
endeavors to find some reasons for the order of succession of the 
Maseehtoth in each Seder. But his reasons are often rather forced. R. 
Sherira Gaon, in his celebrated epistle holds that the compiler of the 
Mishna did not have the intention to arrange the Maseehtoth according 
to a strictly systematical order . This opinion is also expressed in the 
Gemara B. Kamma 102 a; Aboda Zara 7a : rnTDDID "Hro rtiWD 1 ? 1TD pK; 
though, on the other hand, the Gemara sometimes refers to a close 
connection of one Masechta with the preceding one, as in the beginn- 
ing of Masecheth Sota : nDID wn tt"D p^D TOO Nttl HSD; cornp. 
also the beginning of Mas. Shebuoth and of Taanith. 

Geiger (Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift II, p. 487 ss.) shows that in 
the separate Mishna edition, at least in the Sedarim II — VI, the Ma- 
seehtoth are simply arranged according to the number of PeraMm of 
which they consist, so that the Masechtotli having the greater number 
stand first and are gradually followed by those having a lesser number 
of Perakim. Where the arrangement seemingly deviates from this 
rule, we can easily account for the deviation. Thus the three Babas, 
each having ten Perakim, are placed first in Seder Nezikin, because be- 
longing together and having in all thirty Perakim. They are followed 
by Sanhedrin having eleven Perakim, and then by Maccoth which 
though consisting only of three Perakim is in its contents a continua- 
tion of the subject treated in Sanhedrin, forming with it fourteen Pe- 
rakim. 



The Mishna. 9 

The following is a full list of the Maseeh toth belonging to 
each Seder and the number of their Perakim; besides the order 
of their succession in the separate Mishna edition as well as in 
the two compilations of the Talmud. 

The letter G added to the number of the order of succession 
in this list indicates that there is Gemara to that Masechta in 
either of the two Talmud compilations. 

I. Seder Zeraim, containing eleven Masechtoth. 

Order of Succession in the 

Separate TALMUD M . 

Mishna , , . Number 

edition. Babli. Jerushalnu. of Perakim 

1 l.G. l.G. Berachoth, rn3"D, Benedictions or Prayers, 9 

treats of liturgical rules. 

2 2 2.G. Peak, PINE; Corner, treats of the corners and 8 

gleanings of the field, the forgotten sheaves, 
the olives and grapes to be left to the poor, 
according to Le vit. XIX 9. 10 and Deut. XXIV 
19. 21. 

3 3 3.G. Demai, woi, The Uncertain, treats of corn 7 

bought from persons suspected for not hav- 
ing given thereof the tithes. 

4 4 4.G. Khilayim,Wvh'D l Mixtures, treats of the pro- 9 

hibited mixtures in plants, animals and gar- 
ments, according to Levit. XIX, 19 ; Deutr. 
XXII, 9 11. 

5 5 5.G. Shebiith, rpy^EP/ The Sabbatical year, ac- 10 

cording to Ex. XXIII, 11; Lev. XXV, 2-7; 
Deutr. XV, 1-11. 

6 6 6.G. Therumoth, rVO-)]-|, The Heave offerings for 11 

the priests, according to Numb. XVIII, 12. 

7 7 7.G. Maaseroth, TYnWVftt Tn e Tithes, to be given 5 

to the Levites, according to Lev. XXVII, 
30-33; Num. XVIII, 21-24. 

8 8 8.G. Maaser Sheni, i}& -\&VD, The second Tithe, 5 

according to Deut. XIV, 22-26. 

9 9 9.G. Challa, nbn, The Dough, the portion to be 4 

given thereof to the Priests, according to 
Num. XV, 20. 21. 
10 10 10. G. Orla, rb^Vt Tn e Uncircumcised, treats of 3 

the fruits of a tree during the first four 
years after its planting, according to Lev. 
XIX, 23-25. 



10 Historical and Literary Introduction. 

Order of Succession in the 
Separate TALMUD 

Mishna . . Number 

edition. Babh. Jerushalmi. of Perakin 

11 11 11. G. Biccurim, Dni33, The First fruits to be 3 

brought to the Temple, according to Deut. 
XXVI, 1-11. 

II. Seder Moed, containing twelve Masechtoth. 

1 l.G. l.G. Sabbath, rD65>, treats of the labors prohibit- 24 

ed on that day. 

2 2.G. 2.G. Erubin, ^2)"\Vi Combinations. This Masechta 10 

being a continuation of the preceding, treats 
especially of imaginary combinations of loc- 
alities by which to extend the Sabbath 
boundary. 

3 3.G. 3.G. Pesachim, D^nDB/ treats of the laws relating 10 

to the feast of Passover and the paschal lamb. 

4 11 5.G. Shekalim, D^pK>, treats of the half Shekel 8 

which, according to Ex. XXX, 12-16, every 
Israelite had to pay as a temple tax. 

5 8.G. 4.G. Yoma, K£1\ the Day, i. e. the day of At- 8 

onement, according to Lev. XVI, 3-34. 

6 9.G. 6.G. Succah, rD1D> treats of the laws concerning 8 

the feast of Tabernacles, Lev. XXIII, 34"36. 

7 4.G. 8.G. Betza n¥\2 or Yom tov niD D1\ treats of the 5 

kinds of work which, according to Ex. XII, 
16, were prohibited or permitted on the fes- 
tivals. The name Betza (the egg) is taken 
from the first word in that Masechta. 

8 7.G. 7.G. Rosh Hashana, JiJB>n 65>fcO, Beginning of the 4 

year, treats of the feast of New Year. 

9 10. G. 9.G. Taanith, myn, on the public fasts. 4 

10 12.G. 10. G. Megilla, rjyyo, the Scroll, treats of the read- 4 

ing of the book of Esther on the feast of 
Purim. 

11 5.G. 12.G. Moed Kat on, fftp 1TO, Minor feast, treats of 3 

laws relating to tiie days intervening be- 
tween the first and last days of Pesach and 
Succoth. 

12 6.G. 11. G. Chagiga, HMn» Feast offering, treats of the 3 

private offerings on the "three feasts of pil- 
grimage, according to Deut. XVI, 16, 17. 

III. Seder Nashim, containing seven Masechtoth. 

1 l.G. l.G. Yebamoth, niCQ\ Sisters-in-Law, treats of 16 
Levirate marirage, according to Deut. XXV, 
5-10. 



The Mishna. 11 

Order of Succession in the 

Separate TALMUD - . 

Mishna _ , .. T , . . Number 

edition. Babh - Jerushalmi. of p era kim 

2 2.G. 3.G. Khethuboth, rfllU"D/ Marriage deeds, treats 13 

of dower and rnarriage settlements. 

3 5.G. 4.G. Nedarim, DHIJ, Vows, treats of vows and 11 

their annulment, with reference to Num. 
XXX, 3-16. 

4 6.G. 6.G. Nazir, -pjj, the Nazarite, treats of the laws 9 

concerning him, according to Num. VI, 2-21. 

5 7.G. 2.G. Sota, ntUID/ on the woman suspected of adult- 9 

ery, according to Num. V, 12-31. 

6 4.G. 5.G. Gittin, pp'j, on Divorces, based on Deut. 9 

XXIV, 1-5. 

7 3.G. 7.G. Kiddushin, \Wlp, on Betrothals. 4 

IV. Seder Nezikin, containing ten Masechtoth. 

1 l.G. l.G. Baba Kama, NEp H22r First Gate, treats of 10 

Damages and Injuries, and their remedies, 
with reference to Ex. XXI, 28-37 ; XXII, 
1-5. 

2 2.G. 2.G. Baba Metzia, KJTSO **22t Middle Gate, 10 

treats of laws concerning found property 
(Deut. XXII, 1-4), concerning trust (Ex. 
XXII, 6-14), concerning buying and selling 
(Lev, XXV, 14), lending (Ex. XXII, 24-26; 
Lev. XXV, 35-37} and concerning hiring 
and renting. 

3 3.G. 3.G. Baba Bathra, K~l]-Q Nnx Last Gate, treats 10 

of laws concerning real estate and com- 
merce, mostly based on the traditional law; 
besides of the laws concerning hereditary 
succession, based on Num. XXVII, 7-11. 

4 5.G. 4.G. Sanhedrin, pTinJD/ treats of the courts and 11 

their proceedings, and of the punishment 
of capital crimes. 

5 7.G. 5.G. Maccoth, JTDft, Stripes, treats of false wit- 3 

nesses and their punishment (Deut. XIX, 
16-19); of the cities of refuge (Num. XXXV, 
10-32; Deut. XIX, 1-13) and of crimes pun- 
ished by stripes (Deut. XXV, 1-3. 

6 6.G. 6.G. Shebuoth, niJ/QG?, Oaths, treats of the differ- 8 

ent kinds of oaths, those made in private 
life as well as those administered in court, 
Lev. V, 4. 5. 21. 22; Ex. XXII, 6-10. 



12 Historical and Literary Introduction. 

Order of Succession in the 

Separate TALMUD XT , 

Mishna - , , T , , . Number 

edition. Rabl • Jerushalmi. of Perakir 

7 8 Wanting Eduyoth, r\Viy, Testimonies, contains a col- 8 

lection of traditional laws and decisions 
gathered from the testimonies of disting- 
uished teachers. 

8 4.G. 7.G. Aboda Zara, ml mUtf, Idolatry, treats of R 

laws concerning idols and the relation to 
the worshipers thereof. 

9 10 Wanting Aboth, JYQN, Fathers or Sentences of the 5 

Fathers (the principal teachers), contains 
ethical maxims of the Mishna teachers. 
10 9.G. 8.G. Horayoth, rVPTin, Decisions, treats of the 3 
consequences of acting according to errone- 
ous decisions rendered by areligious author- 
ity, with reference to Lev. chapters IV and V. 

V. Seder Kodashim, containing eleven Masechtoth. 

1 l.G. Zebachim, D^PDT/ Sacrifices, treats of the 14 

animal sacrifices and the mode of their of- 
fering, with reference to the first chapters of 
Leviticus. 

2 2.G. o Menachoth, niri3?D, Meat-offering, treats of 13 

meat-and drink offerings, with reference to 
2 Lev. ch. II 

3 4.G. Cholin, (or Chullin) p^in, Profane things, 12 

■- 1 treats of the traditional manner of slaught- 

ering animals for ordinary use; besides of 
£_, the dietary laws. 

4 3.G. Bechoroth, nVYDX The first born, treats of 9 

^ the laws concerning the first born of man 

and animals, according to Ex. VIII, 12.13 
<t and Num. XVIII, 15-17. 

5 5.G. Arachin, P3"iy, Estimations, treats of the 9 

j> mode in which persons or things dedicated 

to the Lord by a vow are legally appraised 
in order to be redeemed for ordinary use, 
according to Lev. XXVII, 2-27. 

6 O.G. Themura, T]"\V2>r\t Exchange, treats of the 7 

laws concerning sanctified things having 
been exchanged, according to Lev. XXVII, 
10-27. 

7 7.G. Kherithoth, mrp"D/ Excisions, treats of the 6 

sins subject to the punishment of excision, 
and their expiation by sacrifices. 



edition. 


ijabh.j 


erus 


8 


8.G. 




9 


10.G. 




10 


11. 


> 



The Mishna. 13 

Order of Succession in the 

Separate TALMUD M . 

Mishna „ , ,. , , , . Number 

of Perakim 

Me-ila, n^yO/ Trespass (Sacrilege), treats of 
the sins of violating or profaning sacred 
things, according to Lev. V, 15. 16. 
Thamid, TDfl, The Daily Sacrifice, describes 7 
the Temple service connected with the daily 
morning and evening offering, according to 
Ex. XXIX, 38-41 ; Num. XXVIII, 2-8. 
Middoth, nilDi Measurements, contains the 5 
measurements and description of the 
Temple, its courts, gates and halls, also de- 
scription of the service of the priestly guards 
in the Temple. 
11 9. Kinnim, U*2p, The bird's nests, treats of 3 

the sacrifices consisting of fowls, the offer- 
ing of the poor, according to Lev. I, 14; V, 
7; XII, 8. 

VI. Seder Teharoth, containing twelve Masechtoth. 

1 2. Khelim, Dv3/ Vessels, treats of the con- 30 

ditions under which domestic utensils, gar- 
ments etc. receive ritual uncleanness, ac- 
o cording to Lev. XI, 33-35. 

2 3. Ohaloth, nibrtX, Tents, treats of tents and 18 

fc houses conveying the ritual uncleanness of 

a dead body, according to Num. XIX, 14.15. 

3 4. m Nega-im, wyH, Leprosy, treats of the laws 14 

relating to leprosy of men, garments and 
6-1 dwellings, according to Lev. XIII and XIV. 

4 5. Par ah, nlQ, The Heifer, treats of the laws 12 

£ concerning the red heifer and the use of its 

ashes for the purification of the unclean, 
< according to Num. XIX. 

5 6. Teharoth, nnnc, Purifications. The word 10 

£ is here used euphemistically, as the Masech- 

ta treats of some lesser degrees of unclean- 
ness lasting only till sunset; e. g., Lev. XI, 
24-28. 

6 7. Mikvaoth, niNlpD, Wells, treats of the con- 10 

ditions under which wells and reservoirs 
are fit to be used for ritual purifications. 

7 l.G. l.G. Nidda, mj, The Menstruous, treats of the 10 

legal uncleanness arising from certain con- 
ditions in women, according to Lev. XV, 



14 Historical and Literary Introduction. 

Order of Succession in the 

Separate TALMUD „ . 

Mishna _, . ,. T , . . Number 

edition. Babh.Jerushalmi. of p er akim 

19-31 and XII, 2-8. 

8 8. Mach-shirin, pTBOJD, Preparations, treats of 6 

liquids that, according to Lev. XI, 34. 38, 
$ prepare and dispose seeds and fruits to re- 

ceive ritual uncleanness. 

9 9. £ Zabim, D^T, Persons suffering of running 5 

issues, treats of the uncleanness arising 
* from such secretions, according to Lev. XV, 

2-18. ^ 

10 10. h TebulYom, DV bl2D# Immersed at day time, 4 

treats of the state of him who at day time 
£ immersed for his purification, while his per- 

fect cleanness according to the law is not 
< acquired before the setting of the sun. 

11 11 Yadayim, D^T, Hands, treats of the ritual 4 

£ uncleanness of hands, according to the trad- 

itional law, and of their purification. 

12 12 Uk-tzin, pxpiy, Stalks of Fruit, treats of 3 

stalks and shells of fruit in regard to con- 
veying ritual uncleanness. 

Remark 1. In connection with the main subject treated 
in each Masechta and generally indicated in its name, occasion- 
ally other more or less congenial subjects are treated. Thus, 
for instance, the last Perakim of Masecheth Megilla are devoted 
to laws cnncerning the sanctity of synagogues and the reading 
of Scriptures at the public service. In the first Perek of Kid- 
dushin, after having set forth the different modes of contracting 
marriage, rules are incidently laid down concerning the legal 
modes of acquiring differentkinds of property, etc. 

Remark 2. The Perakim belonging to each Masechta 
are designated in the separate Mishna edition simply by the 
letters of the Hebrew alphabet, and in the Talmud edition by 
ordinal numbers as well as by a certain name taken from the first 
word or words with which that Perek begins. Thus the first 
Perek of Berachoth is designated in the separate Mishna edition 
by 'tf pD and in the Talmud edition by pttW pnS/ TiDND. In 
earlier rabbinical literature references to a certain Perek of the 
Mishna are generally made by giving only the name of that 
Perek without stating the Masechta to whieh it belongs, as 



The Mtshna. 15 

TpSDH p N i3 referring to the third Perek of Baba Metzia. An 
alphabetical list of the names of all Parakim with the indication 
of the Masechteth to which they belong is found in the appendix 
to Masechoth Berachoth in the Talmud editions, immediately 
after Maimonides' Introduction to Seder Zeraim. 

Language of the Mishna. 

§5. 

The language of the Mishna is New Hebrew, as developed 
during the period of the second Temple. The Hebrew having 
been supplanted by the Aramaic dialects as the language of 
common life, the ancient idiom was cultivated by the learned 
for liturgical and legal purposes. Many new words and phrases 
had to be coined to express new ideas and objects, and new 
grammatical forms and syntactical constructions adopted for 
the favored processes of legal dialectics. As far as possible 
use was made for this purpose of new derivations of the stock 
of Biblical words and of some genuine Hebrew roots which 
though not happening to occur in the Biblical literature still 
lingered in the memory of the people. Besides, recourse was 
had to the dominating languages. From the Aramaic especially 
some word roots and grammatical inflections, derivations and 
constructions were borrowed and modified according to the 
genius of the Hebrew idiom. Utensils and other objects and 
ideas till then unknown were designated by the same terms, 
used by that nation from which they had been borrowed. In 
this way, many Greek terms and with them also some Latin 
words more or less modified, were adopted and naturalized. » 



1 Modern works on the language of the Mishna are: 

M. I. Landau, Geist und Sprache der Hebraer nach dem zweiten 
Tempelbau (Prague 1822]. 

A. Geiger. Lehr-und Lesebuch zur Sprache der Mishna (Breslau, 
1845). 

L. Dukes, Sprache der Mishna (Esslingen, 1845). 

J. H. Weiss, Mishpat Leshon ha-Mishna (Vienna 1867). 

Herm. L. Strack und C. Siegfried, Lehrbuoh der neuhebraeischen 

Sprache und Literatur, Karlsruhe und Leipzig, 1884. 

Salomon Stein, Das Verbum der Mischnasprache, Berlin 1888. 



16 Historical and Literary Introduction. 

In this New Hebrew language, also called the language of 
the sages (D^ESn ]Wb or p;m Wt£^), are composed not only the 
Mishna but also the kindred works to be mentioned in the fol- 
lowing chapter. 

As to the style of expression, the Mishna is very brief and 
concise well calculated to impress itself upon the memory- 



CHAPTER II. 

WORKS KINDRED TO THE MISHNA. 
§6. 

There are several works which are kindred to the content? 
of the Mishna, and originated partly before' and partly after its 
close, though their present shape belongs to a much later period. 
We refer to the Tosephta, the Mechilta, Siphra and Siphre. 
Tnese works are very important from the fact that they throw 
much light on the Mishna in revealing the sources of many of 
its canons, and the reasons of its diverging opinions. For this 
purpose, they are frequently quoted in the Gemara. The follow- 
ing will briefly describe each of these works. 

a. The Tosephta. 

The word Tosephta (NnSDlfi) means Addition, Supplement, 
and, as indicated by this name, the work is intended to complete 
deficiencies of the Mishna. It is divided into Masechtoth, gene- 
rally corresponding to those of the Mischna, but differing from 
them in the arrangement of their subject, and in the division of 
their Perakim. The latter are not subdivided into paragraphs. 
There are in all sixty Masechtoth and 452 Perakim. The Tosephta 
contains mainly the remnants of the earlier compilations of the 
Halacha made by R. Akiba, R. Meir, R. Nehemia, and others not 
adopted in the Mishna, and, besides, additions made, after R. 
Jehuda Hanasi's death, by his desciples R. Chiya, R.Oshaya, Bar 
Kappara and others. But we find in that work also many sayings 
and decisions of later Amoraim of the Babylonian and Palestin- 
ian schools. In its present shape it belongs to the fifth or 
sixth century. 1 



1 The Tosephta is usually printed as an appendix to Alphasi's com- 
pendium of the Talmud. In the Vienna edition of the Eabyl. Talmud 
(1860-72) the Masechtoth of the Tosephta are appended to the corres- 
ponding Mosechtoth of the Talmud. A separate revised edition of the 
whole Tosephta was published by Dr. Zuckermandel (Pasewalk and 
Treves,1877-82). Dr. Adolph Schwartz is publishing a new edition of the 



18 Historical and Literary Introduction. 

b. The Mechilta. 

§ 8. 

The Mechilta, the Siphra and the Siphre have this in com- 
mon, that they treat of the oral law not according to well arrang 
ed subjects, as is the case with the Mishna and the Tosephta, 
but rather in the form of a running commentary and discussion 
on the biblical passages from which the law is deduced or on 
which it is based. 

The term Mechilta (sn^3D), being the Aramaic equivalent 
of the Hebrew word mD, means originally a Measure",butinthe 
rabbinical language it signifies the method of the traditional in- 
terpretation (Midrash), and then a collection of interpretations 
of the law. 

The work bearing that particular name contains a collec- 
tion of rabbinical interpretations on several sections of the second 
book of Moses; beginning with Ex. ch. XII, 1, it goes on tillch. 
XXIII, 19. Of the remaining chapters it comments only on 
XXXI, 12-17 and on XXXY, 1-3. 

Though principally of a legal character (Midrash Halacha), 
it has also homiletical interpretations (Midrash Agada), 
especially on Ex. XIII, 17-XIX, 25. 

The Mechilta is divided into nine main sections (Masechtoth), 
named according to the contents of the Bible passage which they 
expound, as tfnDSn rODD, n^tysi 'DC etc. Each Masechta is 
subdivided into chapters (Parashoth), the total number of which 

is n. 

Passages from the Mechilta are occasionally quoted in the 
Talmud, without however mentioning the name of that book. 
In the post-Talmudic literature it is mentioned as "n SH^D 
^>Ky W. Some were therefore inclined to regard R. Ishmael 



Tosephta with notes and text corrections, of which the first volume 
is out, Wilnal891. 

Critical researches on the Tosephta are found in Frankl's Darke 
Hamishna pp. 304-307 and in I. H.Weiss', Dor Dor etc. II pp. 217-225 ; 
also in I. H. Duenner's Wesen and Ursprung der Tosephta, Amster- 
dam 1874. 



Works ktndbed to the Mishxa 19 

(nourishing in the beginning of the second century) as its author; 
but against this opinion speaks the circumstance that the names 
of teachers living much later are mentioned in the book. Modern 
scholars hold that the Mechilta was originally a collection of 
teachings of R. Ishmael and his school. This collection having 
been brought from Palestine to Babylon, received there many in- 
terpolations. In the form we possess it, the book belongs to the 
fourth or fifth century. 1 

c. The Siphra. 

§ 9. 

The Siphra (S12D i- e. the book), also called Torath Coha- 
nim, is a collection of traditional interpretations of the whole 
book of Leviticus, introduced by an exposition of R. Ishmael's 
thirteen hermeneutic rules. 

Different from the Mechilta, the style of the Siphra is gen- 
erally more argumentative, defending the traditional interpreta- 
tions against possible objections. Both names of this book are 
mentioned, and numerous passages thereof are quoted, in the 
Talmud. The authorship of its essential parts is there ascribed 
to R. Jehuda b. Ilai, a disciple of R. Akiba (nTUr '"» K1DD DJ1D 
Sanhed. 86), and according to this statement the collection origin- 
ated in Palestine in the middle of the second century. But in 
the course of time it was considerably increased by additions 
from the hands of later teachers, especially those belonging to 
the school of Abba Areca and is therefore also called 21 ^"l K13D- a 

As before us, the book has two different divisions which are 

1 The latest editions of the Mechilta with critical introductions 
and annotations were published by I. H. Weiss (Vienna .1885) and by 
M. Friedmann (Vienna 1870.) 

Critical researches on the Mechilta are also found in Frankel's 
Monatschrift 1853, pp. 388 398, and Geiger's. Urschrift pp. 140, 152 sqq. 
and in his Zeitung 1871 pp. 8-28. I. H. Weiss Dor Dor II, pp. 225-231. 

2 The latest edition of the Siphra with the commentary of R 
Abraham b. David of Posquieres (Rabed) and annotations by I H. 
Weiss was published Vienna 1862. 

As to critical researches on the Siphra, see Frankel, Monatsschrift 
1854 and I. H. Weiss, in his Introduction to the Siphra, and in his Dor 
Dor II p. 231-236. 



20 Historical and Literary Introduction. 

rather bewildering, one according to the customary Sabbath 
lessons, Par a shoth, subdivided into Perakim; the other according 
to sections named after their main contei ts and subdivided into 
chapters termed Parasha or Parashata. 

d. The Siphre. 
§ 10. 

The Siphre, or, as its fuller title reads, 21 *21 "HBD (the 
books of the school of Rab), comprises the traditional interpret- 
ations of the book of Numbers, beginning with chapter V, and 
of the whole book of Deuteronomy. The author of the Siphre on 
Numbers was evidently not the same as the author of that on the 
last book of the Pentateuch. The style of the former, being more 
argumentative and discoursive, often resembles that of the Siphra, 
while Siphre on Deuteronomy is generally brief, bearing more 
resemblance to the Mechilta. The passages anonymously given 
in the Siphre are ascribed in the Talmud to R. Simon b. Jochai, 
one of the distinguished disciples of R. Akiba (pjDff ,m \ 'HSD DHD 
Sanhedrin 86a); but,as, on the one hand,many of those passages 
can be traced back to the school of R. Ishmael, and, on the other 
hand, teachers of a much later period are mentioned therein, 
it is the opinion of modern scholars that the Siphre before us is 
a composite of two different works which, like the Siphra, receiv- 
ed its present shape in the Babylonian shools founded by Abba 
Areca. 

The Siphre is divided into sections corresponding to those 
of the Sabbath lessons and subdivided into paragraphs, termed 
Piskoth. That on Numbers has 161, and that on Deuterenomy 
357 Piskoth. 1 

e. Baraitha. 
§11. 

Besides the Tosephta, the Mechilta, the Siphra and the 
Siphre just described, other collections of a similar character 
existed during the Talmudical period. In the course of time 



1 The latest edition «-f the Siphre with annotations is that of M. 
Friedmann, Vienna 1864. 



Works kindred to the Mishna. 21 

they perished, but many hundred fragmentary passages thereof 
are quoted in all parts of the Palestinian and Babylonian Ge- 
mara. Such a passage quoted from those lost collections as well, 
as from the Tosephta, Mechilta, Siphra and Siphre was termed 
Baraitha (NfVHS), or Mathnitha Baraitha, meaning an extrane- 
ous Mishna. This term was used in order to distinguish those 
passages from passages, in our Mishna, that is, the authorized 
Mishna of B. Jehuda Hanasi, compared with which they had 
but a subordinate value. The Baraithoth are often found to be 
conflicting with each other or with the authorized Mishna, and 
in this case the Gemara usually displays, great ingenuity and 
subtility in the attempt to reconcile, them. In some instances, 
however, one or the other Baraitha is declared to be spurious. » 



1 Some critical researches on the Baraitha are found in Franker 
Darke Hamishna p. 311-313, and in I. H. Weiss, Dor Dor II p. 239-244. 



CHAPTER III. 

■i 

THE AUTHORITIES OF THE MISHNA. 

The authorities mentioned in the Mishna and Baraitha as 
having transmitted and developed the oral law belong to three 
different periods, namely: 

1 . The period of Sopherim 

2. The period of Zugoth, and 

3. The period of Tanaim. 

a. Sopherim or scribes were the learned men who succeed- 
ed Ezra during a period of about two hundred years. To them 
many institutions and extensions of the Mosaic law are ascribed 
Q*"lSlD "HTT /D'HSID JYttpn. The Sopherim are also called collect- 
ively nVnjn fiDJS ''tWK the Men of the Great Synod. According 
to tradition, this synod consisted of 120 members, but Ave have 
no record of their names with the exception of Ezra, its founder, 
and of Simon the Just (the high priest Simon I, between 310-302. 
or his grandson Simon II, between 220-202 B. C.) who is said 
to have been one of the last members of the Great Synod. 

Antigonos of Soc/io, a disciple of Simon the Just, was the 
connecting link between this and the following period. 

b. The word Zugoth (JTiJlT), meaning the pairs (duumviri), 
is the appellation of the leading teachers from Jose ben Joezer 
till Hillcl, of whom always two, at the same time, stood at the 
head of the Sanhedrin, one as president (Nasi), and the other 
as vice-president (Ab both din). 

The succession of these Zugoth was: 

1. Jose ben Joezer and Jose be?i Jochanan, nourishing at 
the time of the Maccabcan wars of independence. 

2. Joshua b. Perachia and' Nitai of Arbela, nourishing at 
the time of John Hyrcan. 



The Authorities of the Mishna. 23 

3. Juda b. Tabai and Simon b. Shetach ) flourishing at the 
time of Alexander Janai and queen Salome. 

4. Shcmaiah and Abtalion, flourishing at the time of 
Hyrcan II. 

5. Hillel and S/iamai, flourishing at the time of king 
Herod. 

c. With the disciples of Hillel and Shamai begins the 
period of 7anaim, which lasted about 210 years (from J.0 to 220 
Ch. Era). With the beginning of this period the title Rabbi 
(my teacher) for the ordained teachers, and the title Rabban, our 
teacher) for the president of the Sanhedrin came in use. 

In the Mishna, the term Tana (Sin), meaning a teacher of 
the oral law, does not yet occur. Those teachers are there sig- 
nified by generally adding the title of Rabbi to their names, or 
by calling them collectively D^D^n the Sages, while the author- 
ities of the preceding period are occasionally designated D*OpT 
D^WNin the former elders. It is first in the Gemara that the 
term Tana (NJH) is applied to a teacher mentioned in the 
Mishna and Baraitha, in contradistinction to the Amor aim, ex- 
pounders of the Mishna, as the teachers after R. Jehuda Hanasi 
are called. 

The period of the Tanaim is generally divided into 5 or 6 
minor sections or generations. The purpose of this division is 
to show which teachers developed their principal activity con- 
temporaneously, though the actual lifetime of some of them ex- 
tended to more than one generation. 

The following chronological tables contain the names only 
of the more prominent teachers of each generation. Every 
table is followed by short biographical sketches of the teachers 
mentioned therein. 1 



1 Fuller characteristics of the lives and teachings of the principal 
Tanaim are given in the following works: 

Graetz, History of the Jews, Vol. IV. 

Z. Frankel, Darke Hamishna. 

I. H. Weiss, Zur Geschichte der iuedischen Tradition, Vol. I. 
and II. 

Jacob Bruell, Mebo Hamishna, Vol. I. 

J. Hamburger, Real Encyclopaedic Vol. II. Die Talmudischen 
Artikel. 

M. Braunschweiger, Die Lehrer der Mishnah. 



24 Historical and Literary Introduction. 

The first Generation of Tanaim. 
§ 13. 

The principal Tanaim of the first generation, which lasted 
about seventy years *, from 10 to 80, C. E., arc: 

1. The School of Shamai, and the School of Hillcl 

2. Akabia ben Mahalalel. 

3. Rabban Gamaliel the Elder. 

4. Rabbi Chanina, Chief of the Priests. 

5. R. Simon ben Gamaliel. 

6. R. Jochanan ben Zaccai. 

Characteristics and Biographical Sketches. 

1. The School of Shamai and the School of Hillel were founded 
by the disciples of the great teachers whose names they bear. Follow- 
ing the principles of their masters,they differed widely in their opinions 
on many legal questions; the School of Shamai, in general, taking a 
rigorous, and the school of Hillel a more lenient view of the question. 
In their frequent controversies the School of Shamai, having been 
founded already during the life time of Hillel, is always mentioned 
first. Of individual teachers belonging to either of these two schools 
only a very few are occasionally mentioned by name. Both schools exist- 
ed during the whole period of the first generation, and the antagonism 
of their followers extended even to the middle of the subsequent gener- 
ation. 

2. Akabia ben Mahalalel. Of this teacher who flourished 
shortly after Hillel only a few opinions and traditions are recorded. 
According to what is related of him in Mishna Eduyoth V, 6. 7, he 
was a noble character with unyielding principles. 

3. Rabban Gamaliel the Elder. He was a son of R. Simon, and 
grandson of Hillel whom he succeeded in the office of Nasi. Many 
important ordinances (rVOpn) of the Rabbinical law are ascribed to him 
He died eighteen years before the destruction of Jerusalem. Th 
epithet "the Elder" generally added to his name, is to distinguish him 



1 This comparatively great length of the first generation is easily 
explained by the circumstance, that it refers to the duration of the pre 
vailing Schools of Shamai and Hillel, and not, as in the subsequent gen 
erations, to that of the activity of a single leading teacher. 



The Authorities of the Mishna. 25 

from his grandson Gamaliel of Jabne, who flourished in the following 
generation. 

4. Rabbi Chanina, Chief of the Priests, or the proxy of the high- 
priest. He as well as "the court of Priests" D'JilS ?W 1"2 are inciden- 
tally mentioned in the Mishna in connection with laws concerning the 
sacrifices and the temple service. 

5. R. Simon ben Gamaliel. He was the son and successor of Rab- 
ban Gamaliel the Elder, and was executed by the Romans in the time 
of the destruction of Jerusalem. Belonging to the school of Hillel, 
his individual opinions in questions of law are but rarely recorded in 
the Mishna. He must not v be confounded with his grandson who had 
the same name and belonged to the fourth generation of Tanaim. 

6. R. Jochanan b. Zaccai. This distinguished teacher was one of 
the youngest disciples of Hillel, occupied a high position already be- 
fore the destruction of Jerusalem, and afterwards became the founder 
and head of the celebrated academy of Jabne (Jamnia). 

Of other authorities belonging to the first generation of Tanaim, 
mention must be made of Admon, Chanan and JSachum the Mede, who 
were civil judges before the time of the destruction of Jerusalem and 
whose legal opinions are occasionally recorded in the Mishna. 

The Second Generation of Tanaim. 

§14. 

This generation lasted about forty years, from 80 to 120. 
The principal Tanaim belonging to it are: 

1. Rabban Gamaliel II (of Jabne). 

2. Rabbi Zadok. 

3. R. Dosa (b. Harchinas). 

4. R. Eliezerb. Jacob. 

5. R. Eliezer (b. Hyrcanos). 

6. R. Joshua (b. Chanania). 
1. R. Elazar b. Azaria. 

8. R. Juda b. Bathyra. 

Characteristics and Biographical Sketches. 

1. Rabban Gamaliel II. He was a grandson of Gamaliel the Elder; 
after the death of R. Jochanan b. Zaccai he became president of the 



26 Historical and Literary Introduction. 

academy of Jabne,and like his ancestors, he bore the title Nasi ( Prince); 
with the Romans, Patriarch. In order to distinguish him from his 
grandfather, he received the surname Gamaliel of Jabne, or the 
Second. 

2. R. Zadok. Of him it is related that he, in anticipation of the 
destruction of the Temple, fasted for forty successive years. He then 
removed to Jabne where he as well as his son, R. Eliezerb. Zadok, be- 
longed to the distinguished teachers. 

3. R. Dosa b. Harchinas belonged to the school of Hillel, and 
removed with R. Jochanan b. Zaccai from Jerusalem to Jabne where 
he reached a very old age. He stood in such high esteem that his most 
distinguished colleagues appealed to his opinion in doubtful cases. 

4. R. Eliezer b. Jacob was head of a school, and in possession of 
traditions concerning the structure and interior arrangements of the 
temple. He is also mentioned with commendation as to his method of 
instruction whicn was "concise and clear" (^pjl 2p). There was also an- 
other Tana by a similar name who flourished in the fourth generation. 

5. R. Eliezer b. Hyrkanos,in the Mishna called sirnply R. Eliezer, 
was one of the most distinguished disciples of R. Jochanan b. Zaccai 
who characterized him as "the lime cemented cistern* that does not 
lose a drop''. He was a faithful conservator of handed-down decisions 
and opposed to their slightest modification and to any new deductions 
to be made therefrom. His school was in Lydda, in South Judea. 
Though formerly a disciple of the Hillelites, he inclined to the views 
of the Shamaites and consequently came in conflict with his colleagues. 
Being persistent in his opinion, and conforming to it even in practice, 
he was excommunicated by his own brother-in-law, the patriarch 
Gamaliel II. 

6. R. Joshua b. Chanania, in general called simply R. Joshua, 
was likewise one of the favored disciples of R. Jochanan b. Zaccai. 
Shortly before the destruction of the Temple he left Jerusalem with 
his teacher, after whose death he founded a separate school in Bekiin. 
As member of the Sanhedrin in Jabne, he participated conspicuously 
in its deliberations and debates. His discussions were mostly with 
R. Eliezer to whose unyielding conservatism he formed a striking con- 
trast, as he represented the more rational and conciliatory element of 
that generation, and combined with great learning the amiable virtues 



The Authorities of the Mishna. 27 

of gentleness, modesty and placability which characterized the Hil- 
lelites. As he, on several occasions, was humiliated by the Nasi Gamaliel 
II with whom he differed on some questions, the members of the San- 
hedrin resented this insult of their esteemed colleague by deposing the 
offender from his dignity and electing another president. It was 
only through the interference of the appeased R. Joshua that R. Gam- 
aliel, who apologized for his conduct, was again restored to his office. 

7. R. Elazar b. Azaria descended from a noble family whose 
pedigree was traced up to Ezra the Scribe. Already while a young 
man, he enjoyed such a reputation for his great learning that he was 
made president of the academy at Jabne in place of the deposed R. 
Gamaliel. When the latter was reinstated, R. Elazar was appointed 
as vice-president. His controversies were mostly with R. Joshua, R. 
Tarphon, R. Ishmael and K. Akiba. On account of the noble virtues 
which he combined with his great learning he was compared to "a 
vessel filled with aromatic spices", and R. Joshua said of him: "a gen- 
eration having a man like R. Elazar b. Azaria, is not orphaned". 

8. R. Juda 6. Bathyra had a school in Nisibis (in Assyria) 
already at the time when the temple of Jerusalem was still in exist- 
ence. He was probably a descendant of the family Bene Bathyra who 
were leaders of the Sanhedrin under king Herod, and who resigned 
that office in favor of Hillel. Several other Tanaim had the same 
family name, as R. Joshua b. Bathyra, R. Simon b. Bathyra and one 
called simply Ben Bathyra. 

Of other teachers belonging to the second generation we have yet 
to mention R. Nechunia b. Hakana who was the teacher of R. Ishmael, 
and Nachum of Gimzo who introduced the hermeneutic rule of ->n"l 
DWl (extension and limitation) which was later further developed 
by his great disciple R. Akiba. 



28 Historical and Literary Introduction. 

The third Generation of Tanaim. 
§ 15. 

Several Teachers of the third generation, which lasted from 
the year 120 till about 139, flourished already in the preceding 
one. The principal teachers arc: 

1. R. Tarphon. 

2. R. Ishmael. 

3. R, Akiba. 

4. R. Jochanan b. Nuri. 

5. R. Jose the Galilean. 

6. R. Simon b. Nanos. 

7. R. Juda b. Baba. 

8. R. Jochanan b. Broka. 

Characteristics and Biographical Sketches. 

1. R. Tarphon, or Tryphon, of Lydda. He is sr.id to have been 
inclined to the views of the School of Shamai. On account of his 
great learning he was called "the teacher of Israel" ; besides, he was 
praised for his great charitable works. His legal discussions were 
mostly with his colleague R. Akiba. 

2. It. Ishmael (b. Elisha) was probably a grandson of the high 
priest Ishmael b. Elisha who was condemned to death by Titus together 
with the patriarch Simon b. Gamaliel I. When still a boy, he was 
made a captive and brought to Rome, where R. Joshua who happened 
to come there on a mission, redeemed him at a high ransom and brought 
him back to Palestine. R. Nechunia b. Hakana is mentioned as one 
of his principal teachers. When grown to manhood, he became a 
member of the Sanhedrin and was highly revered by his colleagues. 
He is named among those who emigrated with the Sanhedrin from 
Jabne to Usha. His residence was in South Judea in a place called 
Kephar Aziz. His academical controversies were mostly with R. 
Akiba to whose artificial methods of interpreting the law he was 
strongly opposed, on the principle that the Thora, being composed in 
the usual language of man, must be interpreted in a plain and ration- 
al way. As guiding rules of interpretation he accepted only the seven 
logical rules which had been laid down by Hillel, which he however, 



The Authorities of the Mishna. 29 

by some modifications and subdivisions, enlarged to thirteen. Of these 
thirteen'rules we shall treat in the second part of this work. A separate 
school which he founded was continued after his death by his dis- 
ciples and was known by the name of ''Be R. Ishmael". Of the book 
Mechilta which is ascribed to R. Ishmael and his school we have spoken 
above (p. 18). , * 

3. R-. Akiba (b. Joseph) was the most prominent among the 
Tanaim. He is said to have descended from a proselyte family and to 
have been altogether illiterate up to the age of his manhood. Filled with 
the desire to acquire the knowledge of the law, he entered a school 
and attended the lectures of the distinguished teachers of that time, 
especially of R. Eliezer b. Hyrkanos, R. Joshua b. Chanania, and of 
Nacmmi of Gimzo. Subsequently he founded a school in B'ne Brak, 
near Jabne, and became a member of the Sanhedrin in the last men- 
tioned city. Through his keen intellect, his vast learning and his 
energetic activity he wielded a great influence in developing 
and diffusing the traditional law. He arranged the accumulated 
material of that law in a proper system and methodical order, and 
enriched its substance with many valuable deductions of his own. His 
methodical arrangement and division of that material was completed 
by his disciple R. Meir, and later on became the groundwork of the 
Mishna compiled by R. Jehuda Hanasi. Besides, he introduced a new 
method of interpreting the Scriptures which enabled him to find a 
biblical basis for almost every provision of the oral law. This ingen- 
ious method, which will be described in the II Part of this book, was 
admired by his contemporaries, and notwithstanding the opposition of 
some of his colleagues, generally adopted in addition to the 13 herrnen- 
eutic rules of R. Ishmael. R. Akiba's legal opinions are very frequently 
recorded in all parts of the Mishna and in the kindred works. His acad- 
emical discussions are mostly with his former teachers R. Eliezer, R. 
Joshua and with his colleagues R. Tarphon, R. Jochanan b, Nuri, R. 
Jose the Galilean and others. 

R. Akiba died a martyr to religion and patriotism. Having been 
a stout supporter of the cause of Bar Cochba, he was cruelly executed 
by the Romans for publicly teaching the Law contrary to the edict of 
the emperor Hadrian. 

4. R. Jochanan b. Nuri was a colleague of R. Akiba with whom 
he frequently differed on questions of the law. In his youth he seems 
to have been a disciple of R. Gamaliel II. for whose memory he always 



30 Historical and Literary Introduction. 

retained a warm veneration. He presided over a college in Be'h Slie- 
arim, a place near Sepphoris in Galilee. 

5. R. Jose the Galilean was a very distinguished teacher. Of 
his youth and education nothing is known. At his first appearance in 
the Sanhedrin of Jabne, he participated in a debate with R Tarphon 
and with R. Akiba and displayed such great learning and sagacity 
that he attracted general attention. From this debate his reputation as 
a teacher was established. He was an authority especially in the laws 
concerning the sacrifices and the temple service. His discussions were 
mostly with R. Akiba, R. Tarphon and R. Elazar b. Azariah. Of his 
domestic life it is related that he had the bad fortune of having an ill- 
tempered wife, who treated him so meanly that he was compelled to 
divorce her, but learning that she in her second marriage lived in great 
misery, he generously provided her and her husband with all the neces- 
saries of life. One of his sons, R. Eleazar b. R. Jose the Galilean, 
became a distinguished teacher in the following generation and estab- 
lished the thirty two hermeneutic rules of the Agada. 

6. R. Simon b. Nanos, also called simply Ben Nanos, was a 
great authority especially in the civil law, so that R. Ishmael recom- 
mended to all law students to attend the lectures of this profound 
teacher. His legal controversies were mostly with R. Ishmael and R. 
Akiba. 

7. R. Jadah b. Baba, who on account of his piety was called 
the Chasid, is noteworthy not only as a distinguished teacher but also 
as a martyr to Judaism. Contrary to the Hadrianic edict which, under 
extreme penalty, prohibited the ordination of teachers, he ordained 
seven disciples of R. Akiba as Rabbis, and for this act was stabbed to 
death by the Roman soldiers. 

8. R. Jochanan b. Broka was an authority especially in the civil 
law. Also his son R. Ishmael was a distinguished teacher who flourish- 
ed in the following generation . Of other teachers belonging to this 
generation the following are to be mentioned. R. Elazar (or Eliezer) 
of Modin*, an authority in Agada interpretation. R. Mathia b. Charash 
who, formerly a disciple of R. Eliezer b. Hyrkanos, founded a school in 
the city of Rome and thus was the first teacher who transplanted the 
knowledge of the rabbinical law from Asia to Europe; further, several 
of R. Akiba's earlier disciples, especially (Simon) Ben Zoma and 



The Authorities of the Mishna. 31 

(Simon) Ben Azai, both of whom, besides being distinguished in the 
law, were also deeply engaged in the theosophic speculations of those 
times. 

The fourth Generation of Tanaim. . 
§ 16. 



This generation extended from the death of R. Akiba to 
the death of the patriarch R. Simon b. Gamaliel II, from the 
.year 139 to about 165. Almost all leading teachers of this ge- 
neration belong to the latter disciples of R. Akiba. 

1. R. Meir. 

2. R. Jehuda (ben Ilai). 

3. R. Jose (ben Chalafta). 

4. R. Simon (b. Jochai). 

5. R. Elazar (b. Shamua). 

6. R. Jochanan the Sandelar. 

7. R. Elazar b. Jacob. 

8. R. Nehemia. 

9. R. Joshua b. Korcha. 
10. R. Simon b. Gamaliel. 

Characteristics and Biographical Sketches. 

1. R. Meir, the most prominent among the numerous disciples 
of R. Akiba, was a native of Asia Minor and gained a subsistence as 
a skilf all cop} ist of sacred Scripture. At first, he entered the acad- 
emy of R. Akiba, but finding himself not sufficiently prepared to 
grasp the lectures of this great teacher, he attended, for some time, 
the school of R. Ishmael, where he acquired an extensive knowledge 
of the law. Returning then to R. Akiba and becoming his constant and 
favored disciple, he developed great dialectical powers. R. Akiba 
soon recognized his worth and preferred him to other disciples by 
ordaining him at an early date. This ordination was later renewed 
by R. Judah b. Baba. On account of the Hadrianic persecutions, R. Meir 
had to flee from Judea, but after the repeal of those edicts, he 
returned and joined his colleagues in re-establishing the Sanhedrin 
in the city of Usha, in Galilee. His academy was in Emmaus, near 
Tiberias, and for a time also in Ardiscus near Damascus where a large 



32 Historical and Ltterary Introduction. 

circle of disciples gathered around him. Under the patriarch R. 
Simon b. Gamaliel II he occupied the dignity of a Chacham (advising 
Sage), in which office he was charged with the duty of pre- 
paring the subjects to be discussed in tne Sanhedrin. A conflict 
which arose between him and the patriarch seems to have induced 
him to leave Palestine and return to his native country, Asia Minor, 
where he died. R. Meir's legal opinions are mentioned almost in every 
Masechta of the Mishna and Baraitha. His greatest merit was that 
he continued the labors of R. Akiba in arranging the rich material 
of the oral law according to subjects, and in this way prepared the 
great Mishna compilation of R. Judah Hanasi. Besides bsing one of 
the most distingued teachers of the law, he was also a very popular 
lecturer (Agadist) who used to illustrate his lectures by interesting 
fables and parables. Of his domestic life it is known that he was 
married to Beruria the learned daughter of the celebrated teacher 
and martyr R. Chananiah b. Teradyon. The pious resignation which 
he and his noble wife exhibited at the sudden death of their two 
promising sons has been immortalized by a popular legend in the 
Midrash. 

2. R. Jehuda b. llai is generally called in the Mishna simply 
R. Jehuda. After having received instruction in the law from his 
father who had been a disciple of R. Eliezer b. Hyrkanos, he attended 
the lectures of R. Tarphon and became then one of the distinguished 
disciples of R. Akiba. On account of his great eloquence he is called 
D^DDOn K>X"I "The first among the speakers". Also his piety, mod- 
esty and prudence are highly praised. He gained a modest subsistence 
by a mechanical trade, in accordance with his favored maxims: "Labor 
honors man", and "He who does not teach his son a trade, teaches 
him, as it were, robbery". Having been one of the seven disciples who 
after the death of R. Akiba were ordained by R. Juda b. Baba contrary 
to the Hadrianic edict, he had to flee. After three years he returned 
with his colleagues to Usha and became one of the prominent mem- 
bers of the resuscitated Sanhedrin. The patriarch R. Simon ben Gama- 
liel honored him greatly, and appointed him as one of his advisers. 
As expounder of the law he was a great authority, and is very often 
quoted in all parts of the Mishna and Baraitha. His legal opinions 
generally prevail, when differing from those of his colleagues R. Meir 
and R. Simon. To him is also ascribed the authorship of the essential 



The Authorities op the Mishna. 33 

part of the Siphra. (See above p. 19). The Agada of the Talmud records 
many of his beautiful sayings which characterize him not only as a 
noble-hearted teacher, but also as a sound and clear-headed interpreter 
of Scriptures. He, for instance, denied the literal meaning of the 
resurrection of the dead bones spoken of in Ezekiel ch. XXXVII, but 
declared it to be merely a poetical figure for Israel's rejuvenation (Talm 
Sanhedrin 72 b.). 

R. Jehuda had two learned sons who flourished as teachers in the 
following generation. 

3. JR. Jose b. Chalafta, in the Mishna called simply R. Jose, was 
from Sepphoris where already his learned father had established a 
school. Though by trade a tanner, he became one of the most disting- 
uished teachers of his time. He was a disciple of R. Akiba and of 
R. Tarphon. Lite his colleagues he was ordained by R. Juda b. Baba 
and, on this account, had to flee to the south of Palestine, whence he 
later on returned with them to Usha. For having kept silent, when 
in his presence R. Simon made a slighting remark against the Roman 
government, he was banished to Asia Minor. When permitted to 
return, he settled in his native city Sepphoris where he died in a high 
age. Besides being a great authority in the law, whose opinions prevail 
against those of his colleagues R. Meir, R. Jehuda and R. Simon, he 
was an historian to whom the authorship of the chronological book 
Seder Olam is ascribed. 

4. jR. Simon b. Jochai from Galilee, in the Mishna called simply R. 
Simon, was likewise one of the most distinguished disciples of R. 
Akiba whose lectures he attended during thirteen years. "Be satisfied 
that I and thy creator know thy powers", were the words with which 
this teacher comforted him, when he felt somewhat slighted on 
account of a certain preference given to his younger colleague R. Meir. 
He shared the fate of his colleagues in being compelled to flee after 
ordination. Afterwards, he joined them at the new seat of the 
Sanhedrin in Usha. On a certain occasion he gave vent to his bitter 
feeling against the Romans, which was reported to the Roman governor 
who condemned him to death. He, however, escaped this fate by 
concealing himself in a cave where he is said to have remained for 
several years together with his son, engaged in the study of the law, 
and subsisting on the fruit of the carob-trees which abounded there 
in the neighborhood. In the meantime political atfairs had taken a 



34 Historical and Literary Introduction. 

favorable turn so that he had no longer to fear any persecution; he left 
his hiding place and reopened his academy at Tekoa, in Galilee, where 
a circle of disciples gathered around him. He survived all his col- 
leagues, and in his old age was delegated to Rome, where he succeeded 
in obtaining from the emperor (Marcus Aurelius) the repeal of some 
edicts against the Jewish religion. 

In the interpretation of the law, R. Simon departed from the 
method of his teacher R. Akiba, as he inclined to the view of R. 
Ishmael that "the Thora speaks the common language of man", and 
consequently regarded logical reasoning as the proper starting point 
for legal deductions, instead of pleonastic words, syllables and letters. 
In accordance with this sound principle, he tried to investigate the 
evident motive of different biblical laws, and to make conclusions 
therefrom for their proper application. l In regard to treating and 
arranging the oral law, however, he followed the method of R. Akiba 
in subsuming various provisions under guiding rules and principles. 
R. Simon is regarded as the author of the Siphre, though that work in 
its present shape shows many additions by the hands of later authorities. 
(See above p. 20). 

5. R. Elazar b. Shamua, in the Mishna simply R. Elazar, was 
among those of R. Akiba's disciples who in consequence of the Hadrian 
edicts went to the South, whence he went to Nisibis. He does not, 
however, appear to have joined his colleagues when they gathered 
again at Usha. He is regarded as a great authority in the law. The 
place of his academy is not known, but it is stated that his school was 
always overcrowded by disciples eager to hear his learned lectures. 
Among his disciples was also the later patriarch R. Jehuda. On a 
journey, he visited his former colleague R. Meir at Ardiscos. in Asia 
Minor, and with him had discussions on important questions of the 
law which are recorded in the Mishna and Baraitha. 

6. R. Jochanan the Sandelar had this surname probably from 
his trade in sandals. Born in Alexandria in Egypt, he came to Palestine 
to attend the lectures of R. Akiba, and was so faithful a disciple that 
he visited this teacher even in prison, in order to receive instruction 
from him. His legal opinions are occasionaly recorded in the Mishna 
as well as in the Tosephta and Baraitha. 



See Talm. B. Metzia 115 a and Sanhedrin 21 a. 



The Authorities of the Mishna. 35 

7. R. Elazar (or Eliezer) b. Jacob was a disciple of K. Akiba and 
later a member of the Sanhedrin in Usha. This teacher must not be 
confounded with a former teacher by that name who flourished in the 
second generation (See above p. 26). 

8. R. Nechemia belonged to the last disciples of R. Akiba and was 
an authority especially in the sacrificial law and in the laws concerning 
levitical purification. His controversies are mostly with R. Juda b. 
Ilai. He is said to have compiled a Mishna - collection which was 
embodied in the Tosephta. 

9. R. Joshua b. Korcha is supposed by some to have been a son 
of R. Akiba who, on one occasion, is called by such a surname (meaning 
the bald head) ; but this supposition is very improbable, for it would 
be strange that the son of so illustrious a man should not rather have 
been called by his father's proper name, and that he should never have 
alluded to his celebrated parent or to any of his teachings. l 

R. Joshua b. K. belonged to the authorities of this generation, 
though only a few of his opinions are recorded in the Mishna. 

10. R. Simon b. Gamaliel was the son and successor of the 
patriarch Gamaliel II of Jabne. In his youth, he witnessed the fall of 
Bethar, and escaped the threatened arrest by flight. After the death 
of the emperor Hadrian, he returned to Jabne where he in connection 
with some teachers, reopened an academy, and assumed the hereditary 
dignity of a patriarch. As the returning disciples of R. Akiba, who were 
the leading teachers of that generation, preferred^ sha as the seat of the 
new Sanhedrin, R. Simon was obliged to transfer his academy to that 
city, and appointed R. Nathan as Ab Beth-din (vice-president) and R. 
Meir as Chacham (advising sage, or speaker). Both of these two officers 
had to retire however, when found planning his deposal on account of 
some marks of distinction introduced in order to raise the patriachal 
dignity. He did not enjoy the privilege of his predecessors to be titled 
Rabban (our teacher), but like the other teachers, he was simply called 
Rabbi (my teacher) l , probably because many of his contemporaries were 



1 That R. Akiba had a son by the name of R. Joshua is stated in 
a Baraitha (Pesachim 112a and Shebnoth 6a); but the identity of this 
son with R. Joshua b. Korcha is conclusively disproved by the Tosaph- 
ist Rabenu Tarn in his remarks on Sabbath 150a and B. Bathra 113a. 

1 There are, however, some passages in the Mishna and Gemara 
in which he is called Rabban, as Gittin 74a; B. Bathra 113a; Arachin 
28a. 



36 Historical and Literary Introduction. 

superior to him in learning. Still, his legal opinions, which are fre- 
quently quoted in the Mishna and Baraitha, give evidence that he was 
a man of considerable learning and of sound and clear judgment as 
well as of noble principles. He introduced several legal provisions for 
the protection of the rights of women and slaves and for the general 
welfare of the community. All his opinions expressed in the Mishna, 
with the exception of only three cases, are regarded by later teachers 
as authoritative (Halacha). His discussions recorded in the Mishna and 
Baraitha are mostly held with his celebrated son R. Jehuda Hanasi. R. 
Simon b. Gamaliel appears to have been acquainted also with the Greek 
language and sciences. 

Of other authorities belonging to this generation, we have to 
mention: Abba Saul, R. Elazar b.Zadok. and especially jR. Ishmael 
the son of JR. Jochanan b. Broka. 

Apart from the great circle of teachers mentioned above, the 
disciples of R. Ishmael b. Elisha formed a school in the extreme South 
of Judea (Darom) where they continued the methods of their teacher. 
Of this separate school, called Debe R. Ishmael, only two members are 
mentioned by name: R. Josiah and R. Jonathan. 

The Fifth Generation of Tanaim. 
§ VI. 
This generation extends from the death of R. Simon b. 
Gamaliel II to the death of R. Jehuda Hanasi (from 165 to 
about 200.) 

The following are the most prominent teachers of this gen- 
eration. 

1. R. Nathan (the Babylonian). 

2. Symmachos. 

3. R. Jehuda Hanasi (the patriarch), called simply 
Rabbi. 

4. R. Jose b. Juda. 

5. R. Elazar b. Simon. 

6. R. Simon b. Elazar. 
Characteristics and Biographical Sketches. 

1. R. Nathan was the son of one of the exilarchs in Babylon, and 
probably received his education in his native country. For some 



The Authorities of the M'SHNa. 37 

unknown reasons he emigrated to Judea, and on* account of his great 
learning he was appointed by the patriarch R. Simon b. Gamaliel 
to the dignity of Ab-Beth-din (chief Justice or vice-president) in the 
Sanhedrin of Usha. He had to retire from this office becauce of his 
and R. Meir's dissension with the patriarch, but was soon reinstated 
and became reconciled with the Synhedrial president who held him in 
high esteem. Also the succeeding patriarch R. Jehuda, with whom he 
had many discussions on questions of the law, speaks of him with great 
respect* R.Nathan was not only an authorityinthe rabbinical law, espec- 
ially in jurisprudence,but appears also to have been well versed in mathe- 
matics, astronomy and other sciences. To him is ascribed the authorship 
of Aboth de R. Nathan, which is a kind of Tosephta to Pirke Aboth. 

2. Symmachos was a prominent disciple of R. Meir and disting- 
uished for his great dialectical powers. After the death of his teacher, 
he as well as other disciples of R. Meir were excluded from the academy 
of R. Jehuda Hanasi, as they were charged of indulging in sophistical 
disputations in order to display their dialectical sagacity, instead of 
seeking after truth. Nevertheless the Mishna as well as the Tosephta 
makes mention of the opinions of Symmachos. His renown lay in the 
rabbinical jurisprudence in which he laid down certain principles often 
referred to in the Talmud. 

3. R. Jehuda (Juda) Hanasi, by way of eminence simply called 
Rabbi, was a son of the patriarch R. Simon b. Gamaliel II, and is said 
to have been born on the same day when R. Akiba was executed. His 
principal teachers were R. Simon b. Jochai and R. Elazar b. Shamua 
under whose guidance his intellectual capacity and splendid talents 
early developed. Beside his immense knowledge of the whole range 
of the traditional law, he had a liberal education in secular branches and 
was especially acquainted with the Greek language which he preferred 
to the Syriac, the popular language of Palestine at that time. After 
the death of his father he succeeded him in the dignity of patriarch, 
and became the chief authority eclipsing all other teachers of that 
generation. Though blessed with great riches, he preferred to live in 
a simple style and applied his wealth to the maintenance of his numer- 
ous pupils and to charitable works. The seat of his academy was first 
at Beth-Shearim, afterward at Sepphoris and also at Tiberias. Among 
his most distinguished disciples were: R. Chiya; (Simon) bar Kappara; 



88 Historical and Literary Introduction. 

Levi bar Sissi; R. Abba Areca, later called Rab; Mar Samuel, and many 
others. He is said to have been in a friendly relation with one of the 
Roman emperors, either Marcus Aurelius or, more probably, Lucius 
Verus Antoninus. By virtue of his authority R. Jehuda abolished 
several customs and ceremonies which though sanctified by age had 
become impracticable through the change of times and circumstances. 
His most meritorious work by which he erected for himself a monu. 
ment of enduring fame was the completion of the Mishna compilation 
which henceforth became the authoritative code of the traditional law 
and superseded all similar compilations made by former teachers. 

4. R. Jose ben Juda (b. Ilai) belonged to the great teachers of 
that generation and was a friend of R. Jehuda Hanasi. His legal 
opinions are frequently recorded in the Mishna as well as in the 
Tosephta. 

5. R. Elazar b. Simon (b. Jochai) was a disciple of R. Simon b. 
Gamaliel and of R. Joshua b. Korcha. Although an authority in the 
rabbinical law to whom even the patriarch sometimes yielded, he 
incurred the severest censure of his colleagues for having, on a certain 
occasion, lent his assistance to the Romans in persecuting some Jewish 
freebooters. 

6. R. Simon b. Elazar (probably E. b. Shamua) was a disciple of 
R. Meir whose opinions he often quotes. He established several import- 
ant principles, especially in the civil law. 



The Authorities of the Mishna. 39 

The sixth Generation of Tanaim. 

§18. 

To this generation belong the younger contemporaries and 
disciples of R. Juda Hanasi. They are not mentioned in the 
Mishna, but in the Tosephta and Baraitha, and are therefore 
termed semi-Tanaim, who form a connecting link between the 
period of Tanaim and that of the Amoraim. Their names are : 

1. Plimo. 

2. Ise b. Juda. 

3. R. Elazar b. Jose. 

4. R. Ishmael bar Jose. 

5. R. Juda b. Lakish. 

6. R. Chiya. 

7. R. Acha. 

8. R. Abba (Areca). 

The most prominent among these semi-Tanaim were R. Chiya and 
R. Abba (Areca). 

1. R. Chiya (bar Abba) the elder, which epithel is to distinguish 
him from a later Amora by the same mame, was a Babylonian who 
came at an already advanced age to Palestine where he became the 
most distinguished disciple and friend of R. Jehuda Hanasi. He and 
his disciple R. Oshaya (or Hoshaya) are regarded as the principal authors 
or compilers of the Tosephta (see above p. 17). 

2. R. Abba (Areca) a nephew of R. Chiya was likewise a Babyl- 
onian and a disciple of R. Jehuda Hanasi, after whose death he 
returned to his native country where, under the historical name of Rab, 
he became the principal Amora. (See the following chapter). 

Of other distinguished teachers nourishing in this generation and 
in the beginning of the period of the Amoraim we have to mention 
especially R. Janai (the elder) and R. Jonathan (the elder). The 
former lived in Sepphoris and was one of the teachers of R. Jochanan 
bar Naphachi, the greatest among the Palestinian Amoraim. 



CHAPTER IV. 

THE EXPOUNDERS OE THE MISHNA. 
§ 19. 

As the Mislma compilation of R. Jehuda Hanasi became 
the authoritative code of the oral Law, the activity of the 
teachers was principally devoted to expounding this code. This 
was done as well in the academies of Tiberias, Sepphoris, Caesarea 
in Palestine, as in those of Nahardea, Sura, and later of Pumba- 
ditha and some other seats of learning in Babylonia. The main 
object of the lectures and discussions in those academies was to 
interpret the often very brief and concise expression of the 
Mishna, to investigate its reasons and sources, to reconcile seem- 
ing contradictions, to compare its canons with those of the Ba- 
raithoth,and to apply its decisions and established principles to 
new cases not yet provided for. The teachers who were engaged 
in this work which finally became embodied in the Gemara, are 
called Amoraim, meaning speakers, interpreters, expounders. ' 
They were not as independent in their legal opinions and de- 
cisions as their predecessors, the Tanaim and semi-Tanaim, as 
they had not the authority to contradict Halachoth and prin- 
ciples accepted in the Mishua or Baraitha. The Palestinian 
Amoraim having generally been ordained by the Nasi had the 



1 In a more restricted meaning the term Amora(from -|Otf to say, 
to speak) signifies the same as Methurgeman (pJTinO the interpreter), 
that is the officer in the academies who, standing at the side of the 
lecturer or presiding teacher, had to announce loudly and explain to 
the large assembly what the teacher just expressed briefly and in a 
low voice. 

The term Tana, which generally applies only to the teachers men- 
tioned in the Mishna and Baraitha, is in the period of Amoraim some- 
times used also to signify one whose special business it was to recite the 
memorized Baraithoth to the expounding teachers. In this sense the 
term is to be understood in the phrase: ^l5?3"l rPDp ton ^D Betza 29b. 
and often. 



The Expounders of the Mishna. 41 

title of Rabbi, while the Babylonian teachers of that period had 
only the title of Rab or of Mar. 

The period of Amoraim extends from the death of R. Jehuda 
Hanasi to the compilation of the Babylonian Talmud, that is, 
from the beginning of the third to the end of the fifth century. 
This period has been divided by some into six, by others into 
seven minor periods or generations which are determined by the 
beginning and the end of the activity of the most prominent 
teachers flourishing during that time. 

The number of Amoraim who are mentioned in the Talmud 
amounts to several hundreds. The most distinguished among 
them, especially those who presided over the great academies 
are contained in the following chronological tables of the six 
generations of Amoraim. 1 

The first Generation of Amoraim. 
§ 20. 



A. Palestinian (219-279). 

1. R. Chanina bar Chama. 

2. R. Jochanan (bar Napacha) 

3. R. Simon ben Lakish (Resh 
Lakish). 

4. R. Joshua ben Levi. 



B. Babylonian (219-257). 

1 . Abba Areca, called simply 
Rab. 

2. (Mar) Samuel. 



Biographical Sketches. 
A. Palestinian Amoraim. 

During this generation R. Gamaliel III and R. Judah II were sue 
cessively the patriarchs. 

1. R. Chanina bar Chama (born about 180, died 260) was a disciple 
of R. Jehuda Hanasi whose son and successor R. Gamaliel III bestowed 



1 Some scholars count the semi-Tanaim as the first generation, 
and have consequently seven instead of six generations. The period of 
Palestinian Amoraim being much shorter than that of the Babylonian, 
ends with the third generation of the latter. Frankelinhis '»£;)£> Wn K121D> 
treating especially of the Palestinian Amoraim, divides them also into 
six generations. 



42 Historical and Literary Introduction. 

on him the title of Rabbi. He then presided over his own academy in 
Sepphoris and stood in high regard on account of his learning, modesty 
and piety. As teacher he was very conservative, transmitting that 
only which he had received by tradition, without ever allowing himself 
an independent decision. Of his prominent contemporaries are: R. 
Ephes who reopened a school at Lydda in South Judea; Levi b. Sissi 
(called simply Levi) who though not presiding over an academy, was a 
distinguished teacher,and later emigrated to Babylonia; further Chizkia 
who was a son of R. Chiya the Elder and whose teachings are fre- 
quently quoted in the Talmud. This Chizkia who had not the title of 
Rabbi must not be mistaken for a R. Chizkia who belonged to the third 
generation. 

2. R. Jochanan bar Napacha, in general called simply R. Jochanan 
(born about 199; d. 279), was in his early youth a disciple of R. Jehuda 
Hanasi, later of R. Oshaya in Caesarea, also of R. Janai and especially 
of R. Chanina b. Chama. He then founded his own academy in Tiberias 
which henceforth became the principal seat of learning in the holy 
land. By his great mental powers he excelled all his contemporaries 
and is regarded the chief Amora of Palestine. In expounding the 
Mishna he introduced an analytical method, and laid down certain 
rules for the final decision in such cases in which the Tanaim expressed 
opposite opinions. His legal teachings ethic al aphorisms, and exegetical 
remarks, transmitted by his numerous disciples, form the principal 
elements of the Gemara. He is supposed to have laid the foundation 
of the Palestinian Talmud, though, in its present shape, this work 
can not have been compiled before at least one century after R. Jocha- 
nan' s death. 1 

3. B. Simon b.Lakish, whose name is generally abbreviated in Resh 
Lakish, was a man who combined great physical strength with a noble 
heart and a powerful mind. It is said, that in his youth, he was com- 
pelled by circumstances to gain his livelihood as a gladiator or soldier 



1 As to further characteristics of this and the other prominent 
Amoraim, the folloving works may be consulted: Graetz, History of 
the Jews, vol. IV; Z. Frankel, Mebo; I. H. Weiss, Dor Dor, vol III; 
I. Hamburger, Real Encyclopadie, vol II. Besides, J. Fiirst, "Kultur 
und Literaturgeschichte der Juden in Asien", which treats especially 
of the Babylonian academies and teachers during the period of the 
Amoraim. 



The Expounders of the Mishna. 43 

until making the acquaintance of R. Jochanan who gained him for the 
study of the law and gave him his sister in marriage. Having devel- 
oped extraordinary mental and dialectical powers, he became R. Jocha- 
nan's most distinguished friend and colleague. In the interpretation 
of the Mishna and in legal questions they differed however very often, 
and their numerous controversies are reported in the Babylonian Tal- 
mud as well as in the Palestinian. Also in his Agadic teachings, Resh 
Lakish was original and advanced some very rational views. 

4. R. Joshua b. Levi (ben Sissi) presided over an academy in Lyd- 
da. He is regared as a great authority in the law, and his decisions 
prevail even in cases where his celebrated contemporaries, R. Jochanan 
and Resh Lakish differ from him. Though himself a prolific Agadist, 
he disapproved the vagaries of the Agada and objected to their being 
written down in books. The circunstance that, on a certain occasion, 
his prayer for rain proved to be efficient, probably gave rise to the 
mystic legends with which the fancy of later generation tried to 
illustrate his great piety. 

To other celebrities flourishing in this generations belongs R. 
Simlai of Lydda who later settled in Nahardea. He was reputed less 
as teacher of the Halacha than for his ingenious and lucid method of 
treating the Agada. 

B. Babylonian Amoraim. 

1. Abba Areca (or Aricha) was the real name of the chief Babyl- 
onian Amora who, by way of eminence, is generally called Bab (the 
teacher). He was born about 175 and died 247. As an orphaned youth 
he went to his uncle the celebrated R. Chiya in Palestine to finish his 
studies in the academy of R. Jehuda Hanasi. The mental abilities 
which he displayed soon attracted general attention. After the death 
of R. Jehuda, Abba returned to his native country and in the year 
219 founded the academy in Sura where 1200 pupils flocked around 
him from all parts of Babylonia. His authority was recognized even by 
the most celebrated teachers in Palestine . Being regarded as one of 
the semi-Tanaim he ventured in some instances even to dispute some 
opinions accepted in the Mishna, a privilege otherwise not accorded to 
any of the Amoraim. l Most of his decisions, especially in ritual 
questions, obtained legal sanction, but in the civil law his friend 



1 JP^Bl Sin KJn 21, Erubin 50b and often. 



44 Historical and Literary Introduction. 

Samuel in Nahardea was his superior 1 . Over one hundred of his 
numerous disciples, who transmitted his teachings and decisions to 
later generations are mentioned in the Talmud by their names. 

2. Samuel, or Mar Samuel, was born about 180 in Nahardea, died 
there 257. His father, Abba bar Abba, and Levi b. Sissi were his first 
teachers. Like Rab he went to Pal estine and became a disciple of 
Rabbi JehudaHanasi from whom, however, he could not obtain the 
ordination. After his return to Nahardea, he succeeded R. Shela in 
the dignity of president of the academy (Resh-Sidra) in that city. 
Besides the law, he cultivated the sciences of medicine and astronomy. 
As Amora he developed especially the rabbinical jurisprudence in 
which he was regarded as the greatest authority 2 . Among other import- 
ant principles established by him is that of "Dina d'malchutha Dina" ', 
that is, the'civil law of the government is as valid for the Jews as their 
own law. The most friendly and brotherly relation prevailed between 
Samuel and Rab, although they often differed in questions of the 
aw. After Rab's death (247), his disciples recognized Samuel as the 
highest religious authority of Babylonia. He died about ten years 
later, leaving behind numerous disciples, several of whom became the 
leading teachers in the following generation. 

A distinguished contemporary of Samuel was Mar Ukba, at (irst 
head of the court in Kafri, and laDer Exilarch in Naharciv. . 



1 PH3 bsiDBOl niD^Nn 3"l3 Hn^hn Bechoroth 49b. 

2 Mar Samuel made also a compilation of Bara ithoth which is 
quoted in the Talmud by the phrase ^Nlftty 'll JOJ1. Betza 29a and 
Moed Katon 18b; see Rashi's remark to the first mentioned passage. 



A. Palestinian (279-320) 

1. R. Elazar b. Pedath. 

2. R. Ame. 

3. R. Assi. 

4. R. Chiya bar Abba. 

5. Simon bar Abba. 

6. R. Abbahn. 

7. R. Zera (Zeira). 



The Expounders of the Mishna. 45 

The second Generation of Amoraim. 
§ 21. 

B. Babylonian (257-320). 

1. Rab Huna. 

2. Rab Juda bar Jecheskel. 

3. Rab Chisda (or Chasda). 

4. Rab Shesheth. 

5. Rab Nachman b. Jacob. 



Remarks and Biographical Sketches. 
A. Palestinian Amoraim. 

The pariarchate during this generation was successively in the 
hands of R. Gamaliel IV and R. Judah III. 

1. R. Elazar ben Pedath, generally called simp'y R. Elazar, like 
the Tana R. Elazar (ben Shamua) for whom he must not be mistaken, 
was a native of Babylonia and a disciple and later an associate of R. 
Jochanan whom he survived. He enjoyed great authority and is very 
often quoted in the Talmud. 

2 and 3. R. Ame and R. Assi were likewise Babylonians, and 
distinguished disciples of R. Jochanan. After the death of R. Elazar 
they became the heads of the declining academy in Tiberias. They 
had the title only of ,, Judges, or the Aaronites of the Holy Land" and 
subordinated themselves to the growing authority of the teachers in 
Babylonia. Rabbi Assi is not to be confoundend with his contempor- 
ary, the Babylonian Amora Rab Assi, who was a colleague of Rab 
Saphra and a disciple of Rab in Sura. * 

4 and 5. R. Chiya bar Abba and Simon bar Abba were probably 
brothers. They had immigrated from Babylonia and became disci 
pies of R. Jochanan. Both were distinguished teachers, but very poor. 
In questions of the law they were inclined to rigorous views. 

6. R. Abbahu of Caesarea 5 disciple of R. Jochanan, friend and 
colleague of R. Ame and R. Assi, was a man of great wealth and of 
a liberal education. He had a thorough knowledge of the Greet 



See Tosaphoth Chullin 19a. 



46 Historical and Literary Introduction. 

language, and favored Greek culture. Being held in high esteem by the 
Roman authorities, he had great political influence. He seems to have 
had frequent controversies with the teachers of Christianity in 
Caesarea. Besides being a prominent teacher whose legal opinions are 
quoted in all parts of the Palestinian and Babylonian Talmud, he was a 
very popular lecturer. 

7. R. Zeira (or Zera) was a Babylonian and a disciple of Rab Juda bar 
Jecheskel, but dissatisfied with the hair splitting method prevailing in 
the academies of his native country, he emigrated to Palestine where 
he attended the lectures of R. Elazar b. Pedath in Tiberias, and tried, 
in vain, to unlearn his former method of study. Having been ordained 
as Rabbi, he became one of the authorities in Palestine together with 
R. Ame, R. Assi and R. Abbahu. 

B. Babylonian Amoraim. 

1. Rab Huna (born 212, died 297) was a disciple of Rab, whom, 
after Mar Samuel's death, he succeeded as president of the academy in 
Sura. In this office he was active for forty years. He employed fifteen 
assistants to repeat and explain his lectures to his 800 disciples. 
Highly revered for his great learning and his noble character,he enjoyed 
an undisputed authority to which even the Palestinian teachers R. Ame 
and R. Assi voluntarily subordinated themselves. 

2. Rab Juda bar Jecheskel, generally called simply R. Juda 
(or Jehuda), was a disciple of Rab and also of Samuel. The latter 
teacher, whose peculiar method he adopted and developed, used to 
characterize him by the epithet NJJ^ "the acute". He founded the 
academy in Pumbaditha, but after R. Huna's death he was chosen as 
his successor (Resh Methibta) at Sura, where after two years (299) he 
died in an advanced age. 

3. Rab Chisda (or Chasda) belonged to the younger disciples of 
Rab after whose death he attended also the lectures of R. Huna. But 
from the latter teacher he soon separated on account of a misunder- 
standing between them and established a school of his own. At the 
same time, he was one of the Judges in Sura. After Rab Juda's death 
R. Chisda, though already above 80 years old, became head of the 
academy in Sura and remained in this office for about ten years 

4. Rab Shesheth, a disciple of Rab and Samuel, was member of 
the court in Nahardea. After the destruction of that city he went to 



The Expounders of the Miseina. 47 

Mechuza; later he settled in Silhi where he founded an academy. 
Being blind, he had to rely upon his powerful memory. He was 
R. CUisda's opponent in the Halacha, and disapproved the hairsplitting 
dialectical method which had come in vogue among the followers of 
Rab Juda in Pumbaditha . 

5. Rab Nachman b. Jacob, called simply Rab Nachman, was a 
prominent disciple of Mar Saaiiiel. By his father-in-law, the exilarch 
Abba bar Abulia, he was appointed chief justice in Nahardea. After 
Mar Samuel's death he succeeded him as rector of the academy in that 
city. When two years later (259) the city of Nahardea was destroyed, 
R. Nachman settled in Shechan-Zib. He is regardpd as a great 
authority especially in the rabbinical jurisprudence in which he 
established many important principles. Among others, he originated 
the rabbinical oath termed no\l nyi32>> that is, the purging oath 
imposed in a law suit on the claimee even in cases of general denial 
on ids part fon -1213). 

Of other teachers belonging to this generation who, though not 
standing at the head of the leading academies, are often quoted in 
the Talmud, the following must be noted: 

a. Rabba bar bar Chana who was a Babylonian and son of Abba 
bar Chana. After having attended the academy of R. Jochanan in 
Palestine, he returned to his native country where he frequently 
reported the opinions of his great teacher. He is also noted for the 
many allegorical narratives ascribed to him in the Talmud. 

b. Vila (b. Ishmael) was a Palestinian who frequently travelled 
to Babylonia where he finally settled and died. Although without the 
title of Rabbi or Rab, he was regarded as a distinguished teacher whose 
opinions and reports are often mentioned. 



48 Historical and Literary Introduction. 

The third Generation of Amoraim. 
§ 22. 



A. Palestinian (320-359). B. Babylonian (320-375). 

1. R. Jeremiah. 

2. R. Jonah. 



3. R. Jose. 



1. Rabba bar Huna. 

2. Rabba bar Nachmani. 

3. Rab Joseph (bar Chiya). 

4. Abaye. 

5. Raba. 

6. Rab Nachman bar Isaac. 
1. Rab Papa. 

Remarks and Biographical Sketches. 

A. Palestinian Amoraim. 

The patriarch of this period was Hillel II who introduced the fixed 
Jewish calendar. 

In consequence of the persecutions and the banishment of several 
religious teachers under the emperors Constantin and Constantius, the 
Palestinian academies entirely decayed. The only teachers of some 
prominence are the following: 

1. R. Jeremiah was a Babylonian and disciple of R. Zeira whom 
he followed to Palestine. In his younger days, when still in his native 
country, he indulged in propounding puzzling questions of trifling- 
casuistry by which he probably intended to ridicule the subtile method 
prevailing among some of the contemporary teachers, and on this 
account he was expelled from the academy. In the holy land he was 
more appreciated and after the death of R. Abbahu and R. Zeira was 
acknowledged as the only authority in that country. 

2. R. Jonah was a disciple of R. Ila (Hila) and of R. Jeremiah. 
His opinions are frequently quoted especially in the Palestinian Tal- 
mud. 

3. R. Jose (bar Zabda), colleague of the just mentioned R. Jonah, 
was one of the last rabbinical authorities in Palestine. 

It is probable that the compilation of the Palestinian Talmud 
was accomplished about that time, though it cannot be stated by whom. 



The Expounders of the Mtshna. 49 

B. Babylonian Amoraim. 

1. Rabba (or Rab Abba) bar Huna was not, as erroneously 
supposed by some, the son of the exilarch Huna Mari, but of Rab 
Huna, the disciple and successor of Rab. After the death of K. Chisda 
(309) he succeeded him in the dignity of president of the academy in 
Sura. Under his presidency, lasting 13 years, this academy was 
eclipsed by that of Pumbaditha, and after his death it remained deserted 
for about fifty years until Rab Ashe restored it to its former glory. 

2. Rabba bar Nachmani, in the Talmud called simply Rabba, was 
born 270 and died 330. He was a disciple of Rab Huna, Rab Juda and 
Rab Chisda, and displayed from his youth great dialectical powers on 
account of which he was characterized as "the uprooter of mountains". 
Selected as head of the academy of Pumbaditha, he attracted large 
crowds of hearers by his ingenious method of teaching. In his lectures 
which commented on all parts of the Mishna he investigated the 
reason of the laws and made therefrom logical deductions. Besides, 
he tried to reconcile seeming differences between the Mishna, the 
Baraithoth and the traditional teachings of later authorities. He also 
liked to propound puzzling problems of the law in order to test and 
sharpen the mental powers of his disciples. A charge having been 
made against him by the Persian government that many of his 
numerous hearers attended his lectures in order to evade the poll-tax, 
he fled from Pumbaditha and died in solitude. 

3. Rab Joseph (bar Chiya) was a disciple of Rab Juda and Rab 
Shesheth, and succeeded his friend Rabba in the dignity of president 
of the academy in Pumbadita, after having once before been elected 
for this office which he declined in favor of Rabba. On account of his 
thorough knowledge of the sources of the Law, to which he attached 
more importance than to ingenious deductions, he was called Sinai. 
Besides being a great authority in the rabbinical law, he devoted 
himself to the Targum of the Bible, especially of the prophetical books. 
In his old age he became blind. He died in the year 333 after ha\ ing 
presided over the academy of Pumbaditha only for three years. 

4. Abaye, surnamed Nachmani (b. 280. d. 338), was a son Kaylil 
and a pupil of his uncle Rabba bar Nachmani, and of Rab Joseph. He 
was highly esteemed not only for his profound knowledge of the law 
and his mastership in Talmudical dialectics, but also for his integrity 



50 Historical and Literary Introduction. 

and gentleness. After Rab Joseph's death he was selected as head of 
the academy in Pumbaditha, but under his administration which lasted 
about five years, the number of hearers in that academy decreased 
considerably, as his more talented colleague Raba, had founded a new 
academy in Machuza which attracted greater crowds of pupils. 
Under these two Amoraim the dialectical method of the Babylonian 
teachers reached the highest development. Their discussions, which 
mostly concern some very nice distinctions in the interpretation of the 
Mishna in order to reconcile conflicting passages, fill the pages of the 
Talmud. J In their differences concerning more practical questions 
the opinion of Raba generally prevails, so that Later authorities 
pointed out only six cases in which the decision of Abaye was to be 
adopted against that of his rival. 2 

5. Raba was the son of Joseph b. Chama in Machuza. He was 
born 299 and died 352. In his youth he attended the lectures of Rab 
Nachman and of R. Chisda. Later, he and Abaye were fellow-students 
in the academy of Rabba bar Nachmani. Here he developed his 
dialectical powers by which he soon surpassed all his contemporaries. 
He opened an academy in Machuza which attracted a great number of 
students. After Abaye's death this academy supplanted that in Pumba- 
ditha and during Raba's lifetime became almost the only seat of learn- 
ing in Babylonia. His controversies with his contemporaries, especially 
with his rival colleague Abaye, are very numerous. Wherever an 
opinion of Abaye is recorded in the Talmud, it is almost always fol- 
lowed by the contrary view and argument of Raba. 

6. Rab Nachman b. Isaac was a discipl? of Rab Nachman (b. 
Jacob) and afterwards an officer as Resh Calla in the academy of 
Raba. After the death of the latter he was made president of the 
academy in Pumbaditha which now resumed its former rank. In this 
capacity he remained only four years (352-356) and left no remarkable 
traces of his activity. Still less significant was the activity of his 



1 The often very subtile argumentations of these two teachers 
became so proverbial that the phrase {Oil "3N"I nvin "the critical 
questions of Abaye and Raba" is used in the Talmud as a signification 
of acute discussions and minute investigations, so in Succah 28a. 

9 D"y'p b"V' h 2 "3NT rrrma Nnabn Baba Metzia 21b; Sanhedrin 
27a; Erubin 15a; Kidd. 52a; Gittin 34a. 



The Expounders of the Mtshna. 



51 



successor R. Chama from Nahardea who held the office for twenty one 
years (356-377). 

7. Rab Papa (bar Chanan),a disciple of Abaye and Raba, founded 
a new school in Nares, in the vicinity of Sura, over which he presided 
for nineteen years (354-375). He adopted the dialectical method of his 
former teachers without possessing their ingenuity and their inde- 
pendence, and consequently did not give satisfaction to those of his 
hearers who had formerly attended the lectures of Raba. One of 
his peculiarities was that he frequently refers to popular proverbs 

0&JTK ne*0- l 

The fourth Generation of Babylonian Amoratm (375-427). 

§ 23, 
B. Pumbaditha. 



A. Sura. 
1. Rab Ashe. 



C. Nahardea. 
Ameraar. 



1. Rab Zebid. 

2. Rab Dime. 

3. Rafram. 

4. Rab Cahana. 

5. Mar Zutra. 



Remarks and Biographical Sketches. 

A. Rab Ashe, (son of Simai bar Ashe) was, at the age of twenty, 
made president of the reopened academy of Sura, after the death 
of Rab Papa, and held this office for fifty two years. Under his 
presidency, this academy, which had been deserted since the time of 
Rabba bar Huna, regained its former glory with which Rab had invested 
it. Combining the profundity of knowledge which fermerly prevailed 
in this academy with the dialectic methods developed in that of Pumba- 
ditha, he was generally recognized as the ruling authority, so that his 
contemporaries called him by the distinguishing title of Rabbana (our 
teacher). Invested with this great authority, Rab Ashe was enabled 



1 This Rab Papa must not be mistaken for an elder teacher by 
the same name, who had ten sons, all well versed in the law, one of 
whom, Rafram, became head of the academy of Pumbaditha in the 
following generation. Neither is Rab Papa identical with Rab Papi. 
a distinguished lawyer who nourished in a former generation. 



52 HSTORICAL AND LITERARY INTRODUCTION. 

to assume the task of sifting, arranging and compiling the immense 
material of traditions, commentaries and discussions on the Mishna 
which, during the two preceding centuries, had accumulated in the 
Babylonian academies. In the compilation and revision of this gigantic 
work which is embodied in the Gemara, he was occupied for over 
half a century, and still he did not complete it entirely but this was 
done, after his death, by his disciples and successors. 

B. During the long period of Rab Ashe's activity at the academy 
in Sura, the following teachers presided successively over the academy 
in Pumbaditha. 

1. Rab Zebid (b. Oshaya) who succeeded Rab Chama and held 
the office for eight years. (377-385). 

2. Rab Dime (b, Chinena) from Nahardea, presiding only for 
three years (385-388). 

3. Rafram bar Papa the elder, in his youth a disciple of Raba, 
succeeded R. Dime (388-394). 

4. Rab Cahana (b. Tachlifa), likewise a disciple of Raba, was 
one of the former teachers of R. Ashe. In an already advanced age 
he was made president of the academy of Pumbaditha, and died in the 
year 411. This Rab Cahana must not be mistaken for two other 
teachers of the same name, one of whom had been a distinguished 
disciple of Rab, and the other (Rab Cahana b. Manyome) a disciple of 
Rab Juda b. Jecheskel. 

5. Mar Zutra who, according to some historians, succeeded Rab 
Cahana as rector of the school in Pumbaditha (411-414) is probably 
identical with Mar Zutra b. Mare, who shortly afterwards held the 
high office as Exilarch. In the rectorship of Pumbaditha he was suc_ 
ceeded by Rab Acha bar Raba (414-419): and the latter by Rab Gebiha 
(419-433). 

C. Amemar, a friend of Rab Ashe, was a distinguished judge 
and teacher in Nahardea. When his former teacher Rab Dime became 
president of the academy in Pumbaditha, he succeeded him in the rector- 
ship of that of Nahardea from 390 to about 422. With him this once 
BO celebrated seat of learning passed out of existence. 



The Expounders of the Mishna. 53 

The fifth Generation of Babylonian Amor aim (427-468), 

§ 24, 



A. Sura. 

1. Mar Jemar (Mare mar). 

2. Rab Ide bar Abin. 

3. Mar bar Rab Ashe. 

4. Rab Acha of Difte. 



B. Pumbaditha. 

1. Rafram II. 

2. Rechumai. 

3. Rab Sama b. Rabba. 



Remarks and Biographical Sketches. 

A. 1. Mar Jemar (contracted to Maremar), who enjoyed high 
esteem with the leading teachers of his time, succeeded his colleague 
and friend Rab Ashe in the presidency of the academy in Sura, but 
held this office only for about five years (427-432). 

5. Bab Ide (or Ada) bar Abin became, after Mar Jemar's death, 
president of the academy at Sura and held this office for about twenty 
years (432-452). He as well as his predecessor continued the compilation 
of the Talmud which Rab Ashe had commenced. 

3. Mar bar Rab Ashe, whose surname was Tabyome, and who, 
for some unknown reasons, had been passed over in the election of a 
successor to his father, was finally made president of the academy in 
Sura and filled this office for thirteen years (455-468). In his frequent 
discussions with contemporary authorities he exhibits independence of 
opinion and great faculties of mind. 

4. Rab Acha of Difte, a prominent teacher, was on the point of 
being elected as head of the academy of Sura, but was finally defeated 
by Mar bar Rab Ashe who aspired to that office which his father had 
so gloriously filled for more than half a century. 

B. The academy of Pumbaditha which had lost its earlier influence, 
had during this generation successively three presidents, of whose 
activity very little is known, namely: 

1. Rafram II who succeeded Rab Gebihah, from 433 to 443. 

2. Rab Rechumai, from 443-456. 

3. Rab Sama b. Rabba, from 456-471. 

Toward the end of this generation, the activity of both academies 
was almost paralyzed by the terrible persecutions which the Persian 
King Firuz instituted against the Jews and their religion. 



54 Historical and Literary Introduction. 

The sixth and last Generation of Babylonian Amoraim 
(468-500). 

§25. 



A. Sura. 

1 . Rabba Thospia (or Tosfaah). 

2. Rabina. 



B. Pumbaditha. 
Rab Jose. 



Remarks and Biographical Sketches. 

A. 1. Rabba of Thospia ' succeeded Mar bar Rab Ashi as rector 
of the Suran academy just at the time when the Persian King Firuz 
had ordered the Jewish jurisdiction to be abolished and the academical 
assemblies to be prohibited. It is but natural that under such circum- 
stances the academical activity of this Rabbi which lasted only about 
six years could not amount to much. 

2. Rabina (contraction of Rab Abina) bar Huna, 2 who succeeded 
Rabba of Thospia, entered his office which he held from 488 to 499. 
under more favorable circumstances, since the persecution had ceased 
after the death of Firuz and the academies were reopened. He conse- 
quently developed a great activity, the object of which was to complete 
and close the compilation of the Talmud begun by Rab Ashi. In this 
task he was assisted by Rab Jose, the school head of Pumbaditha, and 
by some associates. 

With the close of the Talmud and the death of Rabina (499) ended 
the period of the Amoraim. The Babylonian teachers who flourished 
during the subsequent half century are called Saboraim 0&O"QD p31). 
They did not assume the authority to contradict the decisions established 
by the Amoraim, but merely ventured to express an opinion ("I2D, to 
reason, think, suppose, opine) and to fix the final decision in cases where 



1 Regarding the correct name and native place of this Rabbi see 
Leopold Low's "Lebensalter" p. 376, note 54, and Neubauer Geogr. 
du Talm., p. 332. 

2 This head of the Suran Academy is by chronograph ers usually cal- 
led Rabina II, in order to distinguish him from a former teacher Rabina 
who was a disciple of Raba and flourished in the fourth generation. 
In the Talmud, both of them are called simply Rabina, and only from 
the connection it is to be seen whether it refers to that elder teacher 
or to the last of the Amoraim. 



The Expounders of the Mishna. 55 

their predecessors, the Amoraim, disagreed. They gave the Talmud 
a finishing touch by adding those final decisions, also numerous, 
especially Agadic, passages. 

B. Rab Jose presided over the academy in Pumbaditha 475-520. 
As Rabina was the last Amora for Sura, so Rab Jose was thel ast for 
Pumbaditha. Flourishing still for a number of years after the close of 
the Talmud, he was at the same time the first of the Saboraim,and must 
be considered as the most prominent among them. 

Of Rab Jose's contemporaries and successors who like himself 
formed the connecting link between the period of Amoraim and that 
of the Saboraim, and whose opinions and controversies are still recorded 
in the Talmud, the following two must be mentioned: Rab Achai b. 
Hu:ia and Rab Samuel b. Abbahu t 



CHAPTER V. 

THE GEM A R A. 

Classification of its contents into Halacha and Agada. 

§ 26. 

Tne collection of the commentaries and discussions of the 
Amoraim on the Mishna is termed Gemara. This term, derived 
from the verb IDS which in Hebrew means to finish, to complete, 
and in the Aramaic also to learn, to teach, signifies either the 
completion, the supplement (to the Mishna), or is identical with 
the word Talmud which is often used in its place, meaning, the 
teaching, the study. 

Besides being a discursive commentary on the Mishna, the 
Gemara contains a vast amount of more or less valuable mate- 
rial which does not always have any close connection with the 
Mishna text, as legal reports, historical and biographical infor- 
mations, religious and ethical maxims and homiletical remarks. 

The whole subject matter embodied in the Gemara is 
generally classified into Halacha and Agada. 

To Halacha 1 belongs that which has bearing upon tne law, 
hence all expositions, discussions and reports which have the 
object of explaining, establishing and determining legal princip- 
les and provisions. The principal branches of the Halacha are 
indicated by the names of the six divisions of the Mishna, and 
by those of the Masechtoth belonging to each division. See 
above pages 9-14. 

The Agada'' comprises every thing not having the character 

1 Halacha (HdS"I) means custom, usage practice; then, an 
adopted rule, a traditio?ial laic. In a more extended meaning, the 
term applies to matters bearing upon that law. 

2 Agada or Aggada (mJN ,NmjN* t min, derived from "V: which 
pi the Hebrew Hiphil or Aramaic Aphel form signifies to narrate, to 
tell', to communicate) means that which is related, a talc, a saying, an 
individual utterance which claims no binding authority. Regarding 
this term, see W. Bacher's learned and exhaustive article, "The origin 
of the word Hagada (Agada)" in the Jewish Quarterly Review (London) 



The Gemara, 57 

of Halacha, hence all historical records, all legends and par- 
ables, all doctrinal and ethical teachings and all free and unre- 
strained interpretations of Scripture. 

According to its different contents and character, the 
Agada may be divided into: , 

1. Exegetical Agada, giving plain or homiletical and al- 
legorical explanations of Biblical passages. 

2. Dogfnatical Agada, treating of God's attrributes and 
providence, of creation, of revelation, of reward and punishment, 
of future life, of Messianic time, etc. 

3. Ethical Agada, containing aphorisms, maxims, proverbs, 
fables, sayings intending to teach and illustrate certain moral 
duties. 

4. Historical Agada, reporting traditions and legends 
concerning the lives of biblical and post-biblical persons or con- 
cerning national and general history. 

5. Mystical Agada, refering to Cabala, angelology, demo- 
nology, astrology, magical cures, interpretation of dreams, etc. 

6. Miscellajteous Agada, containing anecdotes, observa- 
tions, practical advices, and occassional references to various 
branches of ancient knowledge and sciences. 

Agadic passages are often, by the way, interspersed among 
matters of Halacha, as a kind of diversion and recreation after 
the mental exertion of a tiresome investigation or a minute dis- 
cussion on a dry legal subject. Sometimes, however, the Agada 
appears in larger groups, outweighing the Halacha matter 
with which it is loosely connected; f. i. Berachoth, 54a-64a; 
Sabbath 30a-33b; Megilla lOb-Ua; Gittin 55b-58b; 67b-70a; 
Sota 9a-14a; B. Bathra 14b-17a; 73a-76a; Sanhedrin, Perek 
Chelek. 

There are two compilations of the Gemara which differ from 
each other in language as well as in contents; the one made in 
Palestine is called Jerushalmi, the Jerusalem Gemara or Talmud; 



Vol IV, pp. 406-429. As to fuller particulars concerning Halacha and 
Agada, see Zunz' G. Vortraege pp. 57-61 and 83 sq. ; also Hamburger's 
Real Encyclopadie II, the articles Halacha and Agada. 



58 Historical and Literary Introduction. 

the other originating in Babylonia is called Babli, the Baby- 
lonian Gemara or Talmud: 

Compilation of Jerushalmi, The Palestinian Talmud. 

§ 27. 

As no academy existed in Jerushalem after the destruction 
of the second temple, the customary appellation Jerusalem Tal- 
mud is rather a misnomer. More correct is the appellation the 
Palestinian Talmud (b$~\W pK TlD^n) or the Gemara of the 
teachers of the West (fcCnjJD "Um S1D3). 

Maimonides in the introduction to his Mishna commentary 
ascribes the authorship of the Palestinian Talmud to the celebrat- 
ed teacher R. Jochanan who nourished in the third century. 
This statement, if literally taken, cannot be correct, since so 
many of the teachers quoted in that Talmud are known to have 
flourished more than a hundred years after R. Jochanan. This 
celebrated Amora may, at the utmost, have given the first 
impulse to such a collection of commentaries and discussions on 
the Mishna, which was continued and completed by his succes- 
sors in the academy of Tiberias. In its present shape the work 
is supposed to belong to the fourth or fifth century. Some modern 
scholars assign its final compilation even to a still later period 
namely after the close of the Babylonian Talmud. l 

The Palestinian Gemara, as before us, extends only over 
thirty nine of the sixty three Masechtoth contained in the 
Mishna, namelly all Masechtoth of Seder Zeraim, Seder Moed, 
Nashim and Nezikin with the exception of Eduyoth and Aboth. 
But it has none of the Masechtoth belonging to Seder Kodashim, 
and of those belonging to Seder Teharoth it treats only of Ma- 
secheth Nidda. (see above pages 12-14). 

Some of its Masechtoth are defective; thus the last four 



1 Critical researches on this subject are found in Geiger's Jued. 
Zeitschrift f. Wissenschaft 1870; Z. Frankel Mebo, p. 46 sq. and in 
Wiesner's Gibeath Jeruschalaim (Vienna 1873). 

I. H. Weiss (Dor Dor III, p. 114 sq.) regards R. Jose (bar Zabda) who 
was a colleague of R. Jonah and one of the last authorities in Palestine, 
as the very compiler of the Pal. Talmud which in the following 
generation was completed by R. Jose bar Bun (Abun). 



The Gemara 59 

Perakim of Sabbath and the last Perek of Maccoth are wanting. 
Of the ten Perakim belonging to Masecheth Mclda it has only 
the first three Perakim and a few lines of the fourth. 

There are some indications that elder commentators were 
acquainted with portions of the Palestinian Gemara which are 
now missing, and it is very probable that that Gemara origin- 
ally extended to all or, at least, to most of the Masechtoth of 
the Mishna. The loss of the missing Masechtoth and portions 
thereof may be explained partly by the many persecutions which 
interrupted the activity of the Palestinian academies, partly by 
the circumstance that the Pelestinian Gemara did not command 
that general attention and veneration which was bestowed on 
the Babylonian Gemara. 

Compilation of Babli, the Babylonian Talmud. 
§ 28. 

The compilation of the Babjdonian Talmud is generally as- 
cribed to Rab Ashe who for more than fifty years (375-42?) 
officiated as head of the academy in Sura. It is stated that it 
took him about thirty years to collect, sift and arrange the im- 
mense material of this gigantic work. During the remaining 
second half of his activity he revised once more the whole work 
and made in it many corrections. This corrected edition is 
termed frnro KWnD the latter revision, and the former NTnnD 
SDp the first revision. l 

» See Baba Bathra fol 157b. 

Those scholars who maintain that the Mishna was not written 
down by R. Jehuda Hanasi, but that he merely arranged it orally 
(see above p. 5, note), maintain the same in regard to Rab Ashe's 
compilation of the Gemara, without being able to state when and by 
whom it was actually commited to writing. Against this opinion it 
has been properly argued that it must be regarded as absolutely 
impossible for a work so voluminous, so variegated in contents and so 
full of minute and intricate discussions, as the Talmud, to have been 
orally arranged and fixed, and accurately transmitted from generation 
to generation. On the strength of this argument and of some in- 
dications found in the Talmud, Z. Frankel (in his Mebo p. 47) even 
regards it as very probable that Rab Ashe in compiling the Gemara 
made use of some minor compilations which existed before him, and 
of some written records and memoranda containing short abstracts 
of the academical discussions in the preceding generations. Collecting 



60 Historical and Literary Introduction. 

But Rab Ashe did not succeed in finishing the gigantic 
work. It was continued and completed by his disciples and 
successors, especially by the last Amoraim Rabina II who from 
488 to 499 presided over the academy in Sura, and R. Jose, the 
school-head of Pumbaditha. Some additions were made by the 
Saboraim, and perhaps even by some still later hands. 

The Gemara of the Babylonian Talmud covers only thirty 
seven Masechtoth of the Mishna, namely: 

Of Zeraim only one, Berachoth, ommitting the remaining 
ten Masechtoth; 

Of Moed eleven, omitting only Shekalim which in our 
Talmud editions is replaced by the Palestinian Gemara; 

Of Nashim all of the seven Masechtoth beloning to that 
division; 

Of Nezikin eight, omitting Eduyoth and Aboth; 
Of Kodashim nine, omitting Middoth and Kinnim. In 
Thamid only chapters I. II. IV are provided with Gemara, but 
not chapters III. V. VI and VII. 

Of Teharoth only Nidda; omitting eleven Masechtoth. 
There being no traces of the Gemara missing to twenty six 
Masechtoth, it is very probable that this part of the Gemara 
has never been compiled, though those Masechtoth have un- 
doubtedly also been discussed by the Babylonian Amoraim, as is 
evident from frequent references to them in the Gemara on the 
other Masechtoth. The neglect of compiling these discussions 
may be explained by the circumstance that those Masechtoth 
mostly treat of laws which had no practical application outside 
of Palestine. This is especially the case with the Masechtoth 
of Zeraim, except Berachoth, and those of Teharoth, except 



and arranging these records he partly enlarged them by fuller explan- 
ations, partly left them just as he found them. Some traces of such 
memoranda, made probably by R Ashe's predecessors, are still found in 
numerous passages of the Talmud. We refer to the mnemonical 
signs and symbols (D^E>*D) which every now and then are there met 
with (in brackets) as headings of discussions and indicating either the 
names of the teachers to be quoted or the order of the subjects to 
be discussed. A critical investigation on these often very enigmatic 
Simanim is found in Jacob BruH's \vsb BHYl Die Mnemotechnik des 
Talmuds (Vienna 1864). 



The Gemara. 61 

Nidda. It was different with the Masechtoth belonging to 
Kodashim which, though treating of the sacrificial laws, are fully 
discussed in the Babylonian Talmud, as it was a prevailing 
opinion of the Rabbis that the merit of being engaged with the 
study of those laws was tantamount to the actual performance 
of the sacrificial rites (See Talm. Menachoth 110a). 

The absence of Gemara on the Masechtoth Eduyoth and 
Aboth is easily accounted for by the very nature of their 
contents which admitted of no discussions. 

The two Gemaras compared with each' other. 
§29. 

The Palestinian and the Babylonian Gemaras differ from each 
other in language and style as well as in material and in the 
method of treating the same, also in arrangement. 

As regards the language, the Palestinian Gemara is 
composed in the West Aramaic dialect which prevailed in Pa- 
lestine at the time of the Amoraim. 

The language of the Babylonian Gemara is a peculiar idiom, 
being a mixture of Hebrew and East Aramaic with an occasional 
sprinkling of Persian words. Quotations from Mishna and 
Baraitha and sayings of the elder Amoraim are given in the 
original, that is, the New Hebrew (Mishnic) language, while 
forms of judicial and notary documents and popular legends of 
later origin are often given in the Aramaic idiom. 

Although the Palestinian Gemara extends to two more Ma- 
sechtoth than the Babylonian, its total material amounts only 
to about one third of the latter. Its discussions are generally 
very brief and condensed, and do not exhibit that dialectic 
acumen for which the Babj^lonian Gemara is noted. The Agada 
in the Palestinian Gemara includes more reliable and valuable 
historical records and references, and is, on the whole, more 
rational and sober, though less attractive than the Babylonian 
Agada which generally appeals more to the heart and imagin- 
ation. But the latter, on many occasions, indulges too much 
in gross exaggerations, and its popular sayings, especially those 
evidently interpolated by later hands, have often an admixture 
of superstitious views borrowed from the Persian surroundings. 



62 Historical and Literary Introduction, 

The arrangement of the material in the two Talmuds dif- 
fers in this, that in the Babylonian, the Gemarais attached to 
the single paragraphs (srvjnc) of the Mishna, while in the 
Palestinian all paragraphs (there termed rVD 2 ?") belonging to 
one Perek of the Mishna, are generally placed together at the 
head of each chapter. The comments and discussions of the 
Gemara referring to the successive paragraphs, are then marked 
by the headings 'tf robn '2 "S^n and so on. 

The two Gemara collections make no direct mention of 
each other as literary works. But the names and opinions of 
the Palestinian authorities are very often quoted in the Babyl- 
onian Gemara; and in a similar way, though not to the same 
extent, the Palestinian Gemara mentions the views of the Bab- 
ylonian authorities. This exchange of opinions was effected 
by the numerous teachers who are known to have emigrated or 
frequently travelled from the one country to the other. 

The study of the Babylonian Talmud, having been trans- 
planted from its native soil to North Africa, and the European 
countries (especially Spain, France, Germany and Poland), was 
there most sedulously and religiously cultivated in the Jewish 
communities, and gave rise to an immense Rabbinical literature. 
The Palestinian Talmud never enjoyed such general veneration 
and attention. Eminent Rabbis alone were thoroughly convers- 
ant with its contents, and referred to it in their writings. It is 
only in modern times that Jewish scholars have come to devote 
more attention to this Talmud, for the purpose of historical and 
literary investigations. 



CHAPTER VI. 

APOCRYPHAL APPENDICES TO THE TALMUD. 

§30. 

Besides the Masechtoth contained in the Mishna and the 
two Gremaras, there are several Masechtoth composed in the 
form of the Mishna and Tosephta, that treat of ethical, ritual, 
and liturgical precepts. They stand in the same relation to 
the Talmud as the Apocrypha to the canonical books of the 
Bible. When and by whom they were composed, cannot be as- 
certained. Of these apocryphal treatises, the following are ap- 
pended to our editions of the Talmud: 

1. Aboth d' Rabbi Nathan jnj *2VT JTI2tf, divided into 41 
chapters and a kind of Tosephta to the Mishnic treatise 
"Pirke Aboth," the ethical sentences of which are here con 
siderably enlarged and illustrated by numerous narratives. In 
its present shape, it belongs to the post-Talmudic period, though 
some elements of a Baraitha of R. Nathan (who was a Tana 
belonging to the fourth generation) may have been embodied 
therein. ! 

2. Sopherim D'HSID the Scribes, containing in 21chapters rules 
for the writing of the scrolls of the Pentateuch, and of the book 
of Esther ; also Masoretic rules, and liturgical rules for the ser- 
vice on Sabbath, Feast and East days. R. Asher already 
expressed (in his Hilchoth Sepher Thora) the opinion that this 
Masecheth Sopherim belongs to the period of the Gaonim. 2 



i Compare Zunz, Gottesd.Vortraege, p. 108, sq.— Solomon Tausik 
published in his Dl^ !TO (Munich 1872) from a Manuscript of the 
Library in Munich a recension of the Aboth d'Rabbi Nathan which 
differs considerably from that printed in our Talmud editions. The 
latest edition of Aboth d. R. N. in two recensions from MSS. with 
critical annotations was published by S. Schechter (Vienna 1887). 

2 See Zunz, GD. V. p. 95, sq. The latest separate edition of Ma- 
secheth Sopherim from a MS. and with a German commentary 
was published by Joel Mueller, (Leipsic 1878). 



64 Historical and Literary Introduction. 

3. Ebel Rabbathi "TCI bz$ (the large treatise on Mourn- 
ing), euphemistically called HUTSt? Semachoth (Joys), is 
divided into 14 chapters, and treats, as indicated by the title, 
of rules and customs concerning burial and mourning. It is 
not identical with a treatise under the same title, quoted already 
in the Talmud (Moed Katon 24a ; 26a ; Kethuboth 28a), but 
seems to be rather a reproduction of the same with later additions. *) 

4. Callah n^O (the bride, the woman recently married). 
This minor Masechta, being likewise a reproduction of a Masechta 
by that name, mentioned already in the Talmund (Sabbath 114 a; 
Taanith 10b; Kiddushin 49b; Jer. Berachoth, II, 5.), treats 
in one chapter of the duties of chastity in marriage and in 
general. 

5. Derech Eretz ptf -p"T (the conduct of life), divided 
into 11 chapters, the first of which treats of prohibited mar- 
riages, and the remaining chapters, of ethical, social and religious 
teachings. References to a treatise by that name, are made 
already in the Talmud (B. Berachoth 22a and Jer. Sabbath 
VI, 2.) 

6. Derech Eretz Zuta NftlT pN "JTT (the conduct of 
life, minor treatise), containing 10 chapters, replete with 
rules and maxims of wisdom.' 

7. Perek Ha-shalo?n D*6.#PI DIE (chapter on Peace) consists, 
as already indicated by the title, only of one chapter, treating 
of the importance of peacefulness. 

Remark:-Beside these apocryphal treatises appended to our 
editions of the Talmud under the general title of ri3Ep mrDDE 
" Minor Treatises, " there are seven lesser Masechtoth which 
were published by Raphael Kirchheim from an ancient manu- 
script. (Frankfort on the Main 1851.) 



» See Zunz, G. V. p. 90, and N. Briill "Die talm. Tractate iiber 
Trauer um Verstorbene (Jahrbucher f iir Jiid. Geschichte und Litera- 
tur I (Frankfurt a. M.) p. 1-57. M. Klotz just published "Der Talm. 
Tractat Ebel Rabbathi nach Handschriften bearbeitet, iiberzetzt und 
mit Anmerkungen versehen" Frankf. on the Main, 1892. 

a On both of these Masechtoth Derech Eretz see Zunz GD. V. 
pp. 110112. See also: Abr. Tawrogi "Der Talm. Tractat Derech Erez 
Sutta Kritisch bearbeitet, ubersetzt und erlautert" (Berlin 1885). 



CHAPTER VII. 

COMMENTARIES ON THE TALMUD. 

The necessity for such Commentaries. 

§31. 

The Talmud offers to its students great difficulties, partly 
on account of the peculiar idiom in which it is written and which 
is intermixed with so numerous, often very mutilated, foreign 
words ; partly on account of the extreme brevity and succinct- 
ness of its style, the frequent use of technical terms and phrases, 
and mere allusions to matters discussed elsewhere ; partly 
also, on account of the circumstance that, in consequence of 
elliptical expressions, and in the absence of all punctuation marks, 
question and answer, in the most intricate discussions, are some- 
times so closely interwoven, that it is not easy to discern at 
once, where the one ends and the other begins. To meet all 
these difficulties, which are often very perplexing, numerous 
commentaries have been written by distinguished Rabbis. 
Some of the commentaries extend to the whole Talmud, or a 
great portion thereof; others exclusively to the Mishna, or some 
of its sections. The following are the most important com- 
mentaries which are usually printed in our Talmud, and in the 
separate Mishna editions. 

A. COMMENTARIES ON THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD. 
§32. 

1. The celebrated Rabbenu Chananel (n'l) of Kairwan 
(Africa), flourishing in the beginning of the eleventh century, 
wrote a commentary on the greater portion of the Talmud, 
which is often quoted by later commentators, and is now printed 
in the latest Talmud edition of Wilna. 

2. Ras/ii *"$;-[, 2ls the prince of commentators is generally 
called from the initials of his name, Rabbi Solomon Isaaki, of 
Troves (1040 — 1105), wrote a commentary on almost the whole of 



66 Historical and Literary Introduction. 

the Babylonian Talmud, which is printed in all editions thereof. 
It is a true model of concise, clear and systematic commentation. 
By a fe vv plain words it often sheds light upon the obscurest 
passages, and unravels the most entangled arguments of the 
Talmudical discussions. As if anticipating the slightest hesita- 
tion of the unexperienced student, it offers him at once the 
needed explanation, or at least a hint that leads him the right 
way. It has truly been said that but for this peerless comment- 
ary of Rashi, the Babylonian Talmud would have remained as 
neglected as the Palestinian. An additional merit of that com- 
mentary is the fact that it very often establishes the correct 
version of the corrupted Talmud text. Such corrections are 
generally headed by the initials yr\ (standing for p*D*tf *Ori 
"thus we are to read"). 

3. Supplements and additions to Rashi's commentary. 
The commentary on some Masechtoth, not being finished by 
Rashi, was completed in his spirit by his relatives and disciples. 
His son-in-law R. Jehuda b. Nathan completed that on Maccoth 
from fol. 19b.; his grandson R. Samuel b. Meir D'^^n com- 
pleted that on B. Bathra from fol. 29a. The last mentioned 
author, besides, added his commentary to Rashi's on the last 
Perek of Pesachim. The missing commentary of Rashi on Ned- 
arim from fol. 22b. is supplemented by that of his predecessor, 
the celebrated Rabbenu Gershom. 1 To this commentary on 
Nedarim two others are added in our Talmud editions, one by 
Rabbenu Mssim (p) and the other by R. Asher tP'fcnn, both 
flourishing in the fourteenth century. 

4. Tosaphoth (meaning Additions) are a collection of an- 
notation's printed in all Talmud editions on the exterior margin 
of the page, while. the interior margin on the opposite side of 
the Talmud text is generally assigned to Rashi's commentary. 
They are not, like the latter, a running commentary, but rather 
separate remarks and discussions on some passage of the text, 
intended to elucidate its meaning. Sometimes the explanations 



1 Some bibliographers maintain that also the commentary on 
Nazir and Meilah, ascribed to Rashi, does not belong to him, but to 
his disciples. 



Commentaries on the Talmud. 67 

given in the commentaries of R. Chananel and Rashi are 
criticised and corrected. The latter of these two commentaries 
is, byway of excellence, generally designated as Contras (&r\&yp 
commentarius) . The Tosaphoth often display great acumen and 
hair-splitting dialectics in finding, and again harmonizing, ap- 
parent contradictions between passages of the Talmud. Such 
questions of contradiction are generally introduced by the phrases : 
nD«n DK1(abbrev. n'Kl) "if thou wilt say or object..", or nD^n "it 
is astonishing that . .", or ND^n "thou mayest say or object. . • 

or TWZ, "here is the difficulty that ," and the final solution 

of the question or difficulty by'nD'A BH (abbr.^',) "but it may be 
said in answer to this " 

The numerous authors of these Tosaphoth (mSDin *b$2 The 
Tosaphists, the glossarists) flourished during the 12th and 13th 
centuries in France and Germany. To the first among them be- 
long the nearest relatives and disciples of Rashi, namely his two 
sons-in-law R. Meir b. Samuel and R. Jehuda b. Nathan (J'a'H) ; 
his grandson R. Isaac b. Meir|(D"3'H),R. Samuel b.Meir (D'3BH)- 
and R. Jacob b. Meir, called Rabbenu Tarn (n""i) and a nephew 
of the latter, R. Isaac b. Samuel, of Dampierre (jpTH v "i). 

Other authorities frequently mentioned in the Tosaphoth 
are: R. Jehuda b. Isaac, of Paris, called Sir Leon (12th century); 
R. Perez b. Elias in Corbeil (13th century). 1 

The Tosaphoth printed in our Talmud editions are 
merely extracts of older collections, namely of " Tosaphoth 
Sens"by R.Samson b. Abraham of Sens (abbrev. K'3tSH, not to be 
confounded with the same abbreviation of R.Solomon b. Adereth) 
who flourished in the beginning of the 13th eentury, and prin- 
cipally of "Tosaphoth Tuch" or Touques by R. Eliezer of Tuch, 
(Touques), second part of that century. 

A collection of "former Tosaphoth" DW mSDin on Yoma 
is, in some editions, appended to that Masechta. R. Moses of 
Coucy, the author of S'mag, is supposed to have been the origin- 
ator of that collection. 



1 A full list of the Tosaphists is given by Zunz, Zur Geschichte 
und Literatur, pp. 29-60. 



68 Historical and Literary Introduction. 

An anonymous author of the 14th century, excerpted from 
all Tosaphoth the practical results of their remarks and discuss- 
ions. These paragraphed excerpts called mSDIH ^pDB (Decisions 
of the Tosaphoth) are in our Talmud editions appended to each 
Masechta. 

Remark 1. References to certain passages in Rashi as well as 
Tosaphoth are usually made by citing the beginning words, or the catch 
words (^nnDn "m abbrev. n'"l) of that passage. 

Remark 2. Of the great number of later commentaries and super- 
commentaries, generally published in separate volumes, the following 
are appended to some Talmud editions: 

a. n»bt? riDDn or b"Bnn» ^Wn by Solomon Luria 6"SjnriD), in 
the XVI century. This shorter commentary is valuable especially on 
account of its numerous critical emendations in the reading of the Tal_ 
mud text as well as of Rashi and Tosaphoth. 

b. K /y KnrHD "•BTrn* Novellae, i. e. new comments by R. Samue^ 
Edels (of Posen, died in the year 1631). In these explanatory and 
dialectical comments on Talmudical passages, and on Rashi and 
Tosaphoth, the author often displays a high degree of sagacity and 
penetration. 

c. D""inC *KTPn> Novellae, i. e. new comments by R. Meir Lublin 
(Rabbi in Cracow and Lemberg, died in the year 1616). These likewise 
very sagacious comments refer mostly to the Tosaphoth. 

B. COMMENTARIES EXCLUSIVELY ON THE MISHNA. 
§33. 

1. The first to write a commentary on the whole Mishna 
was Moses Maimonides [XII century]. He commenced it in 
the 23rd year of his age, in Spain, and finished it in his 30th 
year, in Egypt. This commentary was written in Arabic, 
manuscripts of which are to be found in the Bodleian Library 
at Oxford, and in some other libraries. From the Arabic it 
was translated into Hebrew by several scholars, flourishing in 
the XIII century, namely Seder Zeraim, by Jehuda Charizi; 
Seder Moed, oy Joseph Ibn Alfual; Seder Nashim, by Jacob 



Commentaries on the Talmud. 69 

Actual (or Abbasi 1 ). Seder Nezikin, by Solomon b. Joseph, 
with the exception of Perek Chelek in Sanhedrin and Masecheth 
Aboth, including the ethical treatise Sh'mone Perakim, in- 
troducing the latter, which were translated by Samuel Ibn 
Tibbon; Seder Kodashim, by Nathanel Ibn Almuli; the trans- 
lator of Seder Teharoth is not known. These translations are 
appended to all Talmud editions, behind each Masechta under 
the heading of D"2inr6 nVWEH Vm*B- 

The characteristic feature of this commentary of Maimonides 
consists in this, that it follows the analytical method, laying 
down at the beginning of each section the principles and general 
views of the subject, and thereby throwing light upon the par- 
ticulars to be explained, while Rashi in his Talmud commentary 
adopted the synthetical method, commencing with the explan- 
ation of the particulars, and thereby leading to a clear under- 
standing of the whole of the subject matter. 

2. Several distinguished Rabbis wrote commentaries on 
single sections of the Mishna, especially on those Masechtoth to 
which no Babylonian Gemara (and hence no Rashi) exists. Of 
these commentaries the following are found in our Talmud 
editions: 

a. ty'in t£WS on all Masechtoth of Seder Zeraim, except 
Berachoth, and all Masechtoth of Seder Teharoth, except Nidda, 
by R. Simson of Sens (XII century), the celebrated Tosaphist. 

b. ^"frT.n tfiTPS, on the same Masechtoth, by R. Asherb. 
Yechiel (XIII cemtury) the author of the epitome of the Talmud 
which is appended to all Masechtoth. 

c. w*\ BPH^B on Masecheth Middoth, by R. Shemaya who 
is supposed to have been a disciple of Rashi. 

d. T'^Sin tyiVS on Masecheth Eduyoth, by R. Abraham 
b. Z>avta\XII cent.), the celebrated author of critical annotations 
on Maimonides' Talmudical code. 

e. Commentary on the Masechtoth Kinnim and Tamid 
by an anonymous author. 

3. R. Obadya of Bertinoro in Italy, and Rabbi in Jerusalem 
(d. in the year 1510), wrote a very lucid commentary on the 
whole Mishna which accompanies the text in most of our separate 

1 See Graetz, Geschichte d. J. vol. VJI, p. 302. 



70 Historical and Literary Introduction. 

Mishna editions. He follows the analytic method of Rashi, and 
adds to each paragraph of the Mishna the result of the discussion 
of the Gemara. 

4. ft'T mSDIH Additional Comments by Yom Tob Lipvian 
Heller, Rabbi of Prague and Cracow (XVII century). These 
comments likewise extending to all parts of the Mishna, and 
accompanying its text on the opposite side of Bartinoro's com- 
mentary in most of our Mishna editions, contain very valuable 
explanations and critical remarks. 

5. Of shorter commentaries to be found only is some special 
editions of the Mishna text the following may be mentioned: 

a. D^n Vy, by Jacob Chagiz, Rabbi in Jerusalem (XVII 
century), the author of a Talmudical terminology Techilath 
Chochma. 

6. nrtt Cp sf?D, by Senior Phoebus (XVIII cent.). This 
commentary is an abstract of Bertinoros and Yom Tob Lipman 
Heller's commentaries. 

b. JinjCp, by Isaac Ibn Gabbai in Leghorn (XVII century), is 
generally based on the commentaries of Rashi and Maimonides. 

C. Commentaries on the Palestinian Talmud. 
§ 34. 

The Palestinian Talmud was not as fortunate as the Babyl- 
onian in regard to complete and lucid commentaries. Most of 
the commentaries on the former extend only to some sections 
or parts thereof, and none of them dates further back than to 
the sixteenth century. 

The first commentary on the whole Palestinian Talmud by 
an anonymous author, appeared in the Cracow edition of the 
year 1609, and is reprinted in the latest Krotoschin edition. It 
is a brief and insufficient commentary. 

2. ytn<V HWj a commentary on 18 Masechtoth by R. 
Joshua Benveniste (XVII century). 

3. my p"ip and additions, called pnp **VW on Seder 
Moed, Nashim and part of Nezikin by R. David Fracnkcl, Rabbi 
in Dessau and later in Berlin, (teacher of Moses Mendelssohn, 
XVIII century). 



Commentaries on the Talmud. 71 

4. nttfD ^3 and D'ttSn nSID, a double commentary on the 
whole Jerushalmi £y R. Moses Margolioth (XVIII century). This 
double commentary and the preceding of David Fraenkel are 
embodied in the Shitomir edition (1860-67). 

5. jfX fiSHS on Berachoth, Peah and Demai by Z. Frankel 
(Vienna 1874 and Breslau 1875). 

6. Commentary on Seder Zeraim and Mosecheth Shekalim 
by Solomon Syrileio (or Serillo), an exile from Spain. Of this 
commentary only Berachoth was published from a MS. with 
annotations by M. Lehmaun (Frank, on the Main 1875). 

Regarding some other commentaries on single parts of the 
Palestinian Talmud see Z. Frankel, Mebo Ha- Jerushalmi 
134a-136a. 



CHAPTER VIII. 

EPITOMES AND CODIFICATIONS OF THE TALMUD. 

Introductory. 

§ 35. 

Since the Babylonian Talmud was considered by most of 
the Jewish communities in all countries as the source of the rab- 
binical law by which to regulate the religious life, it is but 
natural that already at a comparatively early period attempts 
were made to furnish abstracts of the same for practical purposes. 
This was done partly by epitomes or compendiums which, retain- 
ing the general arrangement and divisions of the Talmud, bring 
its matter into a narrower compass by omitting its Agadic and 
unnecessary passages, and abridging the legal discussions; and 
partly by codes in which the results of the discussed legal mat- 
ter is presented in a more systematic order. The first attempts 
in this direction were made by R. Jehudai Gaonof Sura (VIII 
century) in his book Halachoth Ketuoth (abridged Halachoth), 
and by R. Simon Kahiro (Cairo, — IX century) in his Halachoth 
Gedoloth. Both of these two works which afterwards coalesced 
into one work still extant under the latter title, were however 
eclipsed by later master works of other celebrated Rabbinical 
authorities. 

A. Epitomes. 
§ 36. 

The principal epitomes or compendiums of the Talmud are 
by the following authors : 

1. R. Isaac Alfasi (after the initials called "Rif", born in 
1013 near the city of Fez in Africa, died in 1103 as Rabin at 
Lucena in Spain) wrote an excellent compendium which he called 
"Halachoth" but which is usually called by the name of its 
author ^S^S or D'"H. In this compendium he retains the 
general arrangement, the language and style of the Talmud, 
but omits, besides the Agada, all parts and passages which 



Epitomes and Codifications. 73 

concern laws that had become obsolete since the destruction of 
the temple. Besides, he condensed the lengthy discussions, and 
added his own decision in cases not clearly decided in the Talmud. 

Remark. Alf asi's compendium comprises in print three large folio 
volumes in which the text is accompanied by Rashi's Talmud com- 
mentary and, besides, by numerous commentaries, annotations and 
glosses, especially those by R. Nissim b. Reuben (\"l); by R. Zerachia 
Halevi (Maor); by R. Mordecai b. Hillel; by R. Joseph Chabiba (Nimuke 
Joseph), and by some other distinguished Rabbis. 

2. 7?. Asher b. Jechiel (^"S"i"), a German Rabbi, later in 
Toledo, Spain, where he died in 1327, wrote a compendium alter 
the pattern of that of Alfasi and embodied in the same also the 
opinions of later authorities. This compendium is appended in 
our Talmud editions to each Masechta, under the title of the 
author ntSW WT\. 

R. Jacob, the celebrated son of this author, added to that 
compendium an abstract of the decisions contained in the same, 
the tf"K-in ^S TWp- 

B. Codes. 
§ 37. 

1. Mishne Thora min ilJTO "Repetition of the Law", by 
R. Moses Maimonides (D"2D*0 flourishing in the XII century. 
This is the most comprehensive and systematically arranged Code 
of all the Laws scattered through the two Talmuds, or resulting 
from the discussions in the same. Occasionally also the opinions 
of the post Talmudic authorities, the Gaonim, are added. 

This gigantic work, written throughout in Mishnic Hebrew 
in a very lucid and attractive style, is divided into fourteen 
books, hence its additional name Sepher Ha-yad (t having the 
numerical value of 14), and by way of distinction, it was later 
called "Yad Hachazaka", the strong hand. Every book is, ac- 
cording to the various subjects treated therein, divided into 
Halachoth, the special names of which are given at the head of 
each of those fourteen books. The Halachoth are again subdi- 
vided into chapters (Perakim), and these into paragraphs. 



74 Historical and Literary Introduction. 

Remark. This Code is usualy published in four large folio volumes, 
and provided with the following annotations and commentaries: 

a. Hasagoth Robed Y'DiOn ni3B>n Critical Remarks, by JR. 
Abraham b. David, of Posquieres, a contemporary and antagonist of 
Maimonides. 

b. Migdal Oz ny VtiD, the Tower of Strength, defending Maimonid- 
es' Code against the censures of the critic named above, by Shem Tob 
Ibn Gaon, of Spain (beginning of XIV century). 

c. Ilagahoth Maimuniyoth nV^liTB mnjn, Annotations, by R. 
Meir Ha- Cohen, of Narbonne (XIV century). 

d. Maggid Mishne. a commentary, generally referring to the 
Talmudical sources of the decisions in Maimonides' Code, by Don 
Vidal di Tolosa (XIV century). 

e. Khesef Mishne, HMD t|D3, a commentary like the preceding, 
by R. Joseph Karo, the author of the Shulchan Aruch (XVI century). 

In some editions the following two commentaries are also ap- 
pended. 

Lechem Mishne H3^D Dr6> by -B- Abraham de Boton, of Szafed, 
XVI century. 

Mishne Vmeleeh "pu? r\Wl3i by Jehuda Rosanes, Rabbi in Con- 
stantinople, d. 1727. 

2. b\l$ JYIXD'D (abbrev. J"DD), the great Law book, by the 
Tosaphist 7?. Moses of Coucy, in France (XIII century). This 
work arranges the Talmudical law according to the 613 precepts 
which the Rabbis found to be contained in the Pentateuch, and is 
divided into j^y commendatory, and pitff? prohibitory laws. 

Remark. A similar work, but on a smaller scale, is |Bp niVD 'D 
(p"DD)> also called Amude Oolah, by R. Isaac b. Joseph, of Corbeil. 
(d. 1280). 

3. Turim D'HIlfl (the Rows of Laws), by R. Jacob, son of 
that celebrated R. Asher b. Jechiel who was mentioned above. 
The work is divided into four parts, called: Tur Orach Chayim, 
treating of Liturgical Laws ; Tur Yore Dea, treating of 
the Ritual Laws ; Tur Eben Ha-ezer on the Marriage 
Laws, and Tur Choshen Mishpat on the Civil Laws. Each of 
these four books is subdivided according to subjects under ap- 
propriate headings, and into chapters, called Simanim. This 



Epitomes and Codifications. 75 

code differs from that of Maimonides in so far as it is restricted to 
such laws only which were still in use outside of Palestine, and 
as it embodies also rules and customs which were established 
after the close of the Talmud. Besides, it is not written in that 
uniform and pure language and in that lucid style by which the 
work of Maimonides is characterized. 

Remark. The text of the Turim is generally provided with the 
commentaries Beth Joseph, by R. Joseph Karo, and Darke Moshe, by 
R. Moses Isserles. 

4. Shulchan Aruch, ■yny jr6ttf (the prepared table), by R. 
Joseph Karo (XVI century), the same author who wrote the com- 
mentaries on the codes of Maimonides and of R. Jacob b. Asher. 
Taking the last mentioned code (Turim) and his own commentary 
on the same as basis, and retaining its division into four parts as 
well as that into subjects and chapters, he subdivided each 
chapter (Siman) into paragraphs (D^S^D) and so remodeled its 
contents as to give it the proper shape and style of a law book. 
This Shulchan Aruch together with the numerous annotations 
(mrttn) added to it by the contemporary R.Moses Isserles (K"Dn) 
was up to our time regarded by all rabbinical Jews as the autho- 
ritative code by which all questions of the religious life were 
decided. 

Remark. The glosses and commentaries on the Shulchan Aruch 
are very numerous. Those usually printed with the text in the folio 
editions are the following, all belonging to the seventeenth century: 

a. Beer ha-Gola, giving the sources of that code, by Moses Ribkes 
in Amsterdam. 

b. Tare Zahab (T /y D) commentary on all parts of the code, by R. 
David b. Samuel Halevi. 

c. Siflhe Cohen (~\"&) on Jore Dea and Choshen Mishpat, by R. 
Sabbathai Cohen. 

d. Magen Abraham (K"ft) on Orach Chayim, by R. Abram 
Gumbinner. 

e. Beth Samuel on Eben Ha-ezer by R. Samuel b. Uri, of Furth. 

f. Chelkath Mechokek on Eben Ha-ezer, by R. Moses of Brisk. 



f6 Historical and Literary Introduction. 

Constant references to the four Codes mentioned above arc 
made in the marginal glosses which are found on every page of 
the Talmud, under the heading of u En Mishpat, Ner Mitzwah". 
It is the object of these glosses to show, at every instance when 
a law is quoted or discussed in the Talmud, where the final decision 
of that law is to be found in the various codes. The authorship 
of these marginal glosses is ascribed to R. Joshua Boas Baruch 
(XVI century). The same scholar wrote also the glosses 
headed Thora Or which are found in the space between the 
Talmud text and Rashi's commentary, and which indicate the 
books and chapters of the biblical passages quoted in the Talmud, 
besides, the very important glosses on the inner margins of the 
pages, headed Massoreth Ha-shas (D"ttTi miDD) which give 
references to parallel passages in the Talmud. The last ment- 
ioned glosses were later increased with critical notes by Isaiah 
Berlin (Pik), Rabbi in Breslau (d. 1799). 

C. Collections of the Agadic Portions of the Talmud. 

§ 38. 

While the above mentioned Compendiums and Codes are 
restricted to abstracting only the legal matter (Halacha) of the 
Talmud, R. Jacob ibn C/iabib, flourishing at the beginning of the 
sixteenth century, collected all the Agadic passages especially of 
the Babylonian Talmud. This very popular collection which is 
usually printed with various commentaries has the title of En 
Jacob (apjP pjj; in some editions it is also called ^nw py). 

R. Samuel /<?/?, flourishing in the latter part of that century, 
made a similar Collection of the Agadic passages of the Palestinian 
Talmud with an extensive commentary under the title of 
nsntD nS* 1 (Vienna, 1590 and Berlin 1725-26). An abridged 
edition with a short commentary was published under the title of 
D^tfW pa 'D (Lcmberg, 1860). 



CHAPTER IX. 

MANUSCRIPTS AND PRINTED EDITIONS OF THE 

TALMUD. 

A. Manuscripts. 

§ 39. 

In consequence of the terrible persecutions of the Jews 
during the Middle Ages, and the destruction of their libraries, 
so often connected therewith, and especially in consequence of 
the vandalism repeatedly perpetrated by the Church against 
the Talmud, 1 only a very limited number of manuscripts of the 
same have come down to our time. Codices of single Sedari?n 
(sections) and Masechtoth (tracts or treatises) are to be found in 
various libraries of Europe, especially in the Vatican Library of 
Rome, and in the libraries of Parma, Leyden, Paris, Oxford, 
Cambridge, Munich, Berlin and Hamburg. The only known 
complete manuscript of the Babylonian Talmud, written 
in the year 1369, is in possession of the Royal Library of 
Munich. A fragment of Talmud Pesachim, of the ninth or tenth 
century, is preserved in the University Library of Cambridge, 
and was edited with an autotype fascimile, by W. H. Lowe, 
Cambridge 18 79. 

The Columbia College in the city of New York, lately 
acquired a collection of manuscripts containing the treatises 
Pesachim, Moed Kato?i, Megilla and Zebaehim of the Babylonian 
Talmud. These manuscripts came from Southern Arabia, and 
date from the year 1548. 2 

1 It is stated that at the notorious auto-da-fe of the Talmud, held 
in the year 1249, at Paris, twenty four cart-loads of Talmud tomes were 
consigned to the flames. Similar destructions of the Talmud were 
executed by the order of Pope Julius III, in the year 1553, first at Rome, 
then at Bologne and Venice, and in the following year in Ancona and 
other cities. Among the 12,000 tomes of the Talmud that were burned 
at Cremona, in the year 1559 (see Graetz Geschichte d. Juden X. p. 382), 
were undoubtedly also numerous Manuscripts, though most of them 
may have been printed copies. 

2 See Max L. Margolis, "The Columbia College MS. of 
Meghilla examined," New York 1892. 



78 Historical and Literary Introduction. 

Manuscripts of the Mishna or of single Sedarim thereof, 
some of which dating from the thirteenth century, are preserved 
in the libraries of Parma, of Berlin, of Hamburg, of Oxford and 
of Cambridge. That of the last mentioned library was edited 
by S. M. Schiller-Szinessy: "The Mishnaon which the Palestin- 
ian Talmud rests/' etc., Cambridge 1883. 

Of the Palestinian Talmud the only manuscript, of consid- 
erable extent, is preserved in the Library of Leyden. See S. 
M. Schiller-Szinessy, "Description of the Leyden MS. of the 
Palestinian Talmud." Cambridge 1878. Fragments of the 
Palestinian Talmud are also found in some other libraries, 
especially in those of Oxford and Parma. 

Fuller information concerning MSS. of the Talmud is given 
in F. Lebrecht's l 'Handschriften und erste Ausgaben des Babyl. 
Talmud," Berlin 1862. See alsoM. Steinschneider's "Hebraische 
Bibliographic, " Berlin, 1862 and 1863. 

B. The Talmud in Print. 
a. The Mishna editions. 

§ 40. 

Already as early as the year 1492, the first edition of th> 
Mishna together with the commentary of Maimonides appeared 
in Naples. It was folio vved by several editions of Venice (1546-50, 
and 1606), of Riva di Trento (1559) and of Mantua (1559-63). 
In the last mentioned editions the commentary of Obadia di 
Bertrinoro is added. The editions which have since appeared 
are very numerous. Those which appeared since the seven- 
teenth century are generally accompanied, besides Bertinoro's 
commentary, by tD'" 1 mSDIfi by Lipman Heller or some other 
shorter commentaries. 

b. The Babylonian Talmud. 

§ 41. 

The first complete edition of the Babylonian Talmud was 
published by Daniel Bomberg in 12 folio volumes, Venice 



Manuscripts and printed Editions. 79 

1520-23.t Besides the text, it contains the commentary of Rashi, 
the Tosaphoth, the Piske-Tosaphoth, the compendium of Asheri, 
and the Mishna commentary of Maimonides. This original 
edition served as model for all editions which subsequently ap- 
peared at Venice, Basel, Cracow, Lublin, Amsterdam, Frank- 
fort on-the-Oder, Berlin, Frankfort on-the-Main, Sulzbach, Dy- 
hernfurt, Prague, Warsaw, and recently at Vienna and Wilna. The 
later editions were greatly improved by the addition of valuable 
literary and critical marginal notes and appendices by learned 
rabbis. But the Basel and most of the subsequent editions down 
almost to the present time, have been much mutilated by the 
official censors of the press, who expunged from the Talmud all 
those passages which, in their opinion, seemed to reflect upon 
Christianity, and, besides, changed expressions, especially names 
of nations and of sects, which they suspected as having reference 
to Christians. 2 

The Amsterdam editions, especially the first (1644-48), es- 
caped those mutilations at the hand of the censors, and are on 
this account considered very valuable. Most of the passages which 
have elsewhere been eliminated or altered by the censors, have 
been extracted from the Amsterdam edition, and published in 
separate small books. Of these the following two may be menti- 
oned: nr^D % ^nnnr^2p (s.l.)andD"^nm^-iDn,Koenigsberg, 1860. 

A critical review of the complete editions of the Babylonian 
Talmud and of the very numerous editions of single Masechtoth 



1 Prior to this first complete edition, a number of single Masechtoth 
of tbe Babyl. Talmud had already been published by Gershom of 
Soncino, between the years 1484 and 1519, at Soncino and at Pesaro. 

2 Words mostly changed are: instead of i)) (gentile) "»jyia 
(a Samaritan) or 1K13 (an Aethiopian); instead of pB (a heretic) »pVTC 
(a Sadducee) or DVYIp'BK (an Epicurean); instead of '•-QJ (an alien, a Non 
Israelite) U")2V (an idolater); instead of n"1N (the nations of the world) — 
D , v32(Babylonians) or D , :yj3(Canaanites); instead of 'KDYl(the Roman?) 
»SD1« (Syrians) or *XD")B (Persians); instead of ^n(Rome) yyn (the city) 
etc. 

In the more recent editions, however, except those appearing 
under Russian censorship, the original readings have mostly been 
restored. 



80 Historical and Literary Introduction. 

since the year 1484, was published by Raphael Rabbinovicz, in 
his Hebrew pamphlet, YID^nn riDiHri by 1DSD Munich 1877. » 

The same author also collected and published very rich and 
important material for a critical edition of the Babylonian 
Talmud from the above mentioned manuscript in the Royal 
Library of Munich and other manuscripts, as well as from early 
prints of single Masechtoth in various libraries. The title of 
this very extensive work, written in Hebrew, \%Dikduke Sopherim, 
DTSID ''pnpTD with the Latin title: Variae lectiones in Mishnam 
et in Talmud Babylonicum, etc., Munich 1868-86. The fifteen 
volumes in octavo which have appeared of this valuable work 
comprise only three and a half Sedarim of the six Sedarim of the 
Talmud. It is to be regretted that in consequence of the death 
of the learned author the completion of this important work has 
been suspended. 

c. The Palestinian Talmud. 
§ 42. 

Of the Palestinian Talmud (Jerushalmi) only four complete 
editions appeared: 

1. The first edition, published by Daniel Bomberg, Venice 
1523-24, in one folio volume, without any commentary. 

2. The Cracow edition, 1609, with a short commentary 
on the margin. 

3. The Krotoshin edition, 1866, with a commentary like 
that in the Cracow edition, but added to it are marginal notes, 
containing references to parallel passages in the Babylonian 
Talmud, and corrections of text readings. 

4. The Shitomir edition, 1860-67, in several folio volumes, 
with various commentaries. 

Besides these four complete editions, several parts have 
been published with commentaries. 



1 This instructive pamphlet is also reprinted as an appendix to 
vol. VIII of Dikduke Sopherim. 



CHAPTER X. 

AUXILIARIES TO THE STUDY OF THE TALMUD. 
A. Lexicons. 

§ 43. 

1. The Aruch ("p"\yn) by R. Nathan b. Jechiel, of Rome, 
flourishing in the eleventh century. This oldest Lexicon for 
both Talmuds and the Midrashim, on which all later dictionaries 
are based, still retains its high value, especially on account of 
its copious quotations from the Talmudical literature by which 
many corrupted readings are corrected. It received many va- 
luable additions ("plJJH DD1D) at the hand of Benjamin Mussaphia 
(XVII century). These additions, generally headed by the 
initials 2"S = pD^2 1DK, mostly explain the Greek and Latin 
words accuring in the Talmud and Midrash. The edition by 
M. Landau (Prague 1819-24, in five 8vo volumes) is increased by 
numerous annotations and supplied with definitions in German. 
The latest and best edition of that important work is: 

2. Aruch Completum (nb^T\ Tnjj) by Alexander Kohtit, vol. 
1-VIII. Vienna and New York, 1878-1892. In this edition the 
original lexicon of Nathan b. Jechiel is corrected by collating 
several ancient Mss. of the work, and, besides, considerably 
enlarged by very valuable philological and critical researches 
and annotations. 

3. Lexicon Talmudicum by Joh. Bustorf, Basel, 1640. Of 
this work written in Latin, a new corrected and enlarged edition 
was published by B. Fischer, Leipsic, 1869-75. 

4. Neuhebraisches und chald. Worterbuch iiber die Tal- 
mudim und Midrashim, by J. Levy in four volumes. Leipsic 
1876-89. 

5. A Dictionary of the Tahnud Babli and Yerushalmi and 
the Midrashic Literature, by M. Jastrow. London and New 
York, 1886-92. The five parts, thus far published of this 
Dictionary, the only one in English, reach to the letter o. 



82 Historical and Literary Introduction. 

Remark. There are, besides, several small dictionaries, mostly 
abstracts of the Aruch, and useful for beginners. Special mention 
deserves M. Schulbaum, Neuhebraisch-deutsches Worterbuch, Lem- 
berg, 1880. 

B. Grammars. 
§ 44. 

The modern works on the Grammar of the Mishna have 
already been mentioned above p. 15 in the Note to the paragraph 
speaking of the Language of the Mishna. The first attempt at 
compiling a Grammar of the peculiar dialect of the Babylonian 
Gemara was made by: 

S. D. Luzzatto in his "Elementi grammaticali del Caldeo 
Biblico e del dialetto Talmudico Babilonese". Padua, 1865. 

Two translations of this work appeared, namely: 

1. Grammatik der bibl. chaldaeischen Sprache und des 
Idioms des Talmud Babli. Ein Grundriss von S. D. Luzzatto, 
mit Anmerkungen herausgegeben von M. S. *Kriiger. Breslau, 
18T3. 

2. Luzzatto's Grammar of the bibl. Chaldaic Language and 
of the idiom of the Talmud Babli, translated by y. Goldammer, 
New York, 1876. 

Caspar Levias. Grammar of the Aramaic Idiom contained 
in the Babylonian Talmud. In preparation. 

/. Rosenberg. Das Aramaische Yerbum in babyl Talmud. 
Marburg, 1888. 

C. Chrestomathies, 

§ 45. 

A. B. Ehrlich. Rashe Perakim, Selections from the Talmud 
and the Midrashim. New York, 1884. 

B. Fischer. Talmudische Chrestomathie mit Anmerkungen, 
Scholien und Glossar. Leipsic, 1884. 

Ph. Lederer. Lehrbuch zum Selbstunterricht im babyl. Tal- 
mud, 3 parts, Pressburg, 1881-88. 

A. Singer. "pTTEfi Talmudische Chrestomathie fiir den 
ersten TTnterricht im Talmud, 2 parts. Pressburg, 1882. 



Auxiliaries to the study of the Talmud. 83 

D. Introductory Works and Treatises. 

a. Older Works. 

§ 46. 

1. Samuel Hanagid, of Granada (XI century), was the first 
to write an introduction to the Talmud. Only a part of his 
work has come down to our time, and is appended to the first 
volume of our Talmud editions under the heading TlE^nn K*DC 

2. Moses Maimonides opens his Mishna commentary on 
Seder Zeraim with an introduction to the Talmud, especially to 
the Mishna. 

This introduction of Maimonides as well as that of Samuel 
Hanagid have been translated into German by Pinner in his 
Translation of Talm. Berachoth. 

3. nWHS 'D (Methodology of the Talmud), by Samson of 
Chinon (XIV century). Constantine (1515), Cremona, (1558), 
Verona (1657). 

4. D^lp ITD^n, by Jeshua b. Joseph Halevi, of Toledo, 
(XV century). 

This work was translated into Latin by Constantin 
L'Empereur, under the title Clavis Talmudica. Leyden, 1634. 

In the editions of Venice (1639), and of Livorno (1792) the 
Halichoth Olam is accompanied by two complementary works: 
TID*?nn *tfy2, by Joseph Karo,andnyiD&* ]*y>, by Solomon Algazi. 

Abstracts of the works 3 and 4 are added to Samuel Hanagid's 
Mebo Hatalmud in the appendix to our Talmud editions. 

5. SIDin Wl Methodology of the Talmud by Isaac 
Companion, of Castilia (XV century), published in Venice (1565) 
Mantua (1593), Amsterdam (1754). A new edition was pub- 
lished by Isaac Weiss, Vienna, 1891. 

6. riE^n r6nn (Methodology of the Talmud), by Jacob 
Chagiz (XVII century). Verona 1647. Amst. 1709. 

b. Modern Works in Hebrew. 

§ 47. 

/. Abelsohn. TfWTV JVDT, Methodology of the Mishna and 
Rules of Halacha. Wilna, 1859. 



84 Historical and Literary Introduction. 

Jacob BrulL rWDH tf"D£, Introduction to the Mishna; 2 
volumes. Frankf. o. M. 1876-85. Yol. I treats of the lives and 
methods of the teachers from Ezra to the close of the Mishna, 
and vol. II of the Plan and System of the Mishna. 

Zebi Hirsch Ckaj'es. TiB^npl N*DD, Introduction to the 
Talmud. Lemberg, 1845. 

Z. Frankel nation 'OTT, Hodegetica in Mishnam etc., 
Leipsic, 1859. Alitle Supplement to this important work was 
published under the litle of "Additamenta et Index ad librum 
Hodegetica in Mischnam". Leipsic, 1867. 

Z, Frankel. iB^tPVPn N12D, Introductio in Talmud Hiero- 
solymitanum. Breslau, 1870. 

Joachim Oppenheimer. n^DPI JTn^fi, the genesis of the 
Mishna. Pressburg, 1882. 

J. H. Weiss. VEnm in 111 with the German title: Zur 
Geschichte der judischen Tradition. Vienna, 1871-83. Yol I 
and II treat of the period to the close of the Mishna, and Yol. 
Ill of that of the Amoraim. 

J. Wiesner. C^rP rij?23, Investigations concerning 
the origin and the contents of the Palestinian Talmud. Yienna, 
1872. 

c. Works and Articles in Modern Languages. 
§48. 

S. Adler. The article Talmud in Johnson's Encyclopedia, 
New York. Reprinted in the author's collective work i 'Kobetz 
al Yad". New York, 1886: pp. 46-80. 

/. S. Block. Einblicke in die Geschichte der Entstehung 
der Talmudischen Literatur. Yienna, 1884. 

N. Brilll. Die Entstehungsgeschichte des babyl. Talmuds 
als Schriftwerkes (in Jahrbucher fiirJiid. Geschichte u. Literatur 
II pp. 1-123). 

Sam. Davidson. The Article Talmud in John Kitto's 
Cyclopaedia. 

J. Derenbourg* Article Talmud in Lichtenberg's Ency" 
clopedie des sciences religieuses. Paris, 1882. XII pp. 1007" 
1036. 



Auxiliaries to the study of the Talmud. 85 

Z. Frankel. Beitrage zur Einleitung in den Talmud (in 
Monatschrift fur Geschichte unci Wissenschaft des Judenthums 
X, pp. 186-194; 205-212; 258-272). 

J. Hamburger. Articles Mischna and Talmud in Real 
Eycyclopadie fur Bibel und Talmud. Strelitz 1883. Yol II pp. 
789-798 and 1155-1167. 

D. Hoffmann. Die erste Mischna und die Controversen 
derTanaim. Berlin, 1882. 

B. Pick. Article Talmud in Clintock and Strong's Cyclo- 
paedia of theological Literature. Yol. X, pp. 166-187. 

Ludw. A. Rosenthal. Uebercten Zusammenhang der Mischna. 
Ein Beitrag zu ihrer Entstehungs geschichte. Strasburg, 1890. 

S. M. Schiller- Szinessy. Article Mishnah in Encyclopedia 
Britannica, 9th Edition, vol. XVI, and Article Talmud in vol. 
XXIII. 

Hermann L. Strack. Einleitung in den Thalmud. Leipsic, 
1887. This work of the celebrated Christian scholar which treats 
of the subject with thoroughness, exactness and impartiality, is 
a reprint of the article Tahnud in Herzog's Heal Encyclopadie 
fur protestant. Theologie. Second Edition, vol. XVIII. 

d. Historical Works. 

Of modern historical works which, treating of the Talmudical 
periodshed much light upon the genesis of the Talmud, the fol- 
lowing are very important: 

Julius Fiirst. Kultur und Literaturgeschichte der Juden 
in Asien (Leipsic, 1849), treats of the Baoylonian academies 
and teachers during the period of the Amoraim. 

I. M. Jost. Geschichte des Judenthums und seiner Secten 
(Leipsic 1857-59). Yol II, pp. 13-222 treat of the period from 
the destruction of the temple to the close of the Talmud. 

H. Graetz. Geschichte der Juden, Vol. IV, second edition, 
Leipsic, 1866. This volume has been translated into English 
by James K. Gutheim: History of the Jews from the Downfall 
of the Jewish State to the conclusion of the Talmud. New 
York, 1873. 

G. Karpeles. Geschichte der jiidischen Literatur. Berlin, 
1886, pp. 265-332. 



86 Historical and Literary Introduction 

e. Encyclopedical Works. 
§50. 

Jsaac Lamperonti, physician and Rabbi in Ferrara (XVIII 
century) wrote in the Hebrew language a very extensive and 
useful Encyclopedia of the Talmud and the Rabbinical Decisions, 
under the title of priX* 1 "7113. rive folio volumes of this work, 
comprising the letters tf-D, were published at Venice (1750) and 
Livorno (1840). The remaining volumes have lately been 
published in 8vo at Lyck (1864-1874) and Berlin (1885-1889), 
where also a new edition of the former volumes appeared. 

Solomon Rapaport. ]>^a TlJ?, an encyclopedical work in 
Hebrew of which only one volume, containing the letter s, ap- 
peared (Prague 1852). 

J. Hamburger. Real Encyclopaedic fur Bibel und Talmud, 
Abtheilung II. Die Talmudischen Artikel A-Z. Strelitz, 1883. 
Three Supplements to this valuable work appeared Leipsic 
1886-92. 

f. Some other Books of Reference. 

§ 51. 

Simon Peiser. Tip W rhvti. Onomasticon of Biblical per- 
sons and of the Mishna teachers quoted in the Talmud and in 
Midrash (Wandsbeck 1728). 

Malachiben Jacob (XVIII century), VDS %i ?D T». This book 
is a Methodology of the Talmud, alphabetically arranged. 
Livorno, 1767, Berlin, 1852. 

A. Stein. Talmudischc Terminologie; alphabetisch geordnet. 
Prague, 1869. 

Jacob Briill. jyi^ BHT1 Die Mnemonotechnik des Talmud. 
Vienna, 1864. 

This little book explains the Si/nanim, i. e. the mnemonical 
signs and symbols so often met with in the Talmud which are 
intended to indicate the sequence of the discussing teachers or 
of their arguments. See above p. 60, Note. 

Israel Mash. p2T7j^B Rabbinical Sentences, alphabetically 
arranged. Warsaw, 1874. 



Auxiliaries to the study of the Talmud. 87 

S. Ph. Frenkel. W*\lb )V¥- Index of the Agadic passages 
of the Talmud. Krotoschin, 1885. 

Moses Halevi. DW¥. Legal and ethical maxims of the 
Talmud, alphabetically arranged. Belgrade, 1874. 

Wiesner. Scholien, wissenschaftliche Forschungen aus dem 
Gebiete des babyl. Talmud. I Berachoth; II Sabbath; III 
Erubin and Pesachim. Prague, 1859-67. 



CHAPTER XI. 

TRANSLATIONS OP THE TALMUD. 
A. The Mishna. 

§ 52- 
a. Latin Translations. 

The learned Dutch G. Surenhusius published (Amsterdam, 
1698-1703) a Latin version of the Mishna and of the com- 
mentaries of Maimonides and Obadia Bertinoro with annotations 
by several Christian scholars. 

Remark. Prior to this publication of Surenhusius, a Latin version 
of some single Masechtoth of the Mishna was published by various 
Christian Scholars, as Sabbath and Erubin by Seb. Schmidt (Leipsic, 
1661); Shelcalim, by Joh. Wtilfer (Altdorf, 1680); Aboda Zara and Tamid, 
by C. Peringer (Altdarf, 1680). 

b. German Translations. 

Johann Jacob Rabe. Mishnah iibersetzt und crlautert. 
Anspach, 1760-63. 

/. M. Jost 1 the celebrated Jewish historian, published 
(Berlin 1832-34) anew German translation in Hebrew characters 
with short introductions and annotations, together with the 
vocalized Mishna text and the commentary nnj Cp. 

A. Sammter. Mischnajoth,vokalisirter Text mit dcutscher 
Uebersetzung und Erklarung. Berlin, 1886 — . 
c. English Translations. 

W. Walton. Translation of the treatises Sabbath and 
Erubin, London, 1718. 

D. A. de Sola and M. I. Raphall. Eighteen treatises from 
the Mishna translated. London, 1843. 

Joseph Barclay published under the title "The Talmud" a 
translation of eighteen treatises of the Mishna witli annotations. 
London, 1878. 

C. Taylor. Sayings of the Jewish Fathers (the treatise 
Aboth). Cambridge, 1877. 

Kemark. The treatise Aboth has been translated into almost all of 
the European languages. 



Translations. 89 

B. The Babylonian Talmud. 

§ 53. 

To translate the Mishna is a comparatively easy task. 
Its generally plain and uniform language and style of expression, 
and its compendious character could easily enough be rendered 
into another language especially when accompanied by some 
explanatory notes. But it is quite different with the Gemara, 
especially the Babylonian. There are, of course, also passages 
in the Gemara which offer no great difficulties to a translator 
who is sufficiently familiar with the idiom in which the original 
is composed. We refer to the historical, legendary and homi- 
letical portions (Agadas) which the compilers have interspersed 
in every treatise. The main part of the Gemara, however, which 
is essentially of an argumentative character, giving minute 
reports of discussions and debates on the law, this part, so rich 
in dialectical subtilities, and so full of technicalities and elliptical 
expressions, offers to the translator almost insurmountable 
difficulties. Here a mere version of the original will not do; 
neither will a few explanatory foot notes be sufficient. It would 
sometimes require a whole volume of commentary to supplement 
the translation of a single chapter of the original, in order to 
render fully and clearly the train of thought and dialectical 
arguments so idiomatically and tersely expressed therein. l This 



1 A striking analogy to this difficulty of translating the legal 
discussions of the Talmud is found in an other branch of legal literature, 
as may be seen from the following Note which a learned jurist 
kindly furnished me: "The Year Books of the English Law, sometimes 
called the Black Letter Books, written in the quaint French Norman, 
which was the court-language of that day, have always been more or 
less a sealed book, except to experts in historical antiquities. By the 
effort of the Selden Society these Reports are being translated from 
time to time into the English; but to the uninitiated, even in English, 
these reports are gibberish, and none but those thoroughly versed in 
legal antiquities, and who have so to speak imbibed from a thousand 
other sources the spirit of the laws of that day, will be much benefited 
by this translation. It will take volumes of commentary, a hundred 
times more bulky than the text, to make this mine of Englsh common 
law of any value to the general practitioner, not to speak of the laity. 
"It is caviar to the general public." 



90 Historical and Literary Introduction. 

explains why the various attempts at translating the whole of 
the Babylonian Talmud have, thus far, proven a failure, so that 
as yet only comparatively few Masechtoth of this Talmud have 
been translated, and these translations are in many cases not in- 
telligible enough to be fully understood by the reader who is not 
yet familiar with the original text and with the spirit of the 
Talmud. 

a. Latin Translations of single masechtoth. 

Blasins Ugolinus published in volume XIX of his Thesaurus 
antiquitatum sacrarum (Yenice 1756) a translation of the 
Masechtoth Zebachim and Menachoth, and in vol. XXV (1762) 
the Masecheth Sanhedrin. 

G. E. Edzard published (Hamburg, 1705) a Latin trans- 
lation of the first two Perakim of Aboda Zara. 

b. German Translations. 

Johann Jacob Rabe. Der Tractat Brachoth nach der Hiero- 
solymitan und Babylonischen Gemara iibersetzt uud erlautert. 
Halle, 1777. 

C. M. Pinner. Tractat Berachoth. Text mit deutscher 
Uebersetzung und Einleitung in den Talmud. Berlin, 1842. 

Ferd. Christian Ewald. Aboda Sarah, ein Tractat aus dem 
Talmud iibersetzt. Niirenberg, 1856 and 1868. 

A. Sammter. Tractat Baba Mezia. Text mit deutscher 
Uebersetzung und Erklarung. Berlin, 1876. 

M. Rawicz. Der Tractat Megilla nebst Tosafoth ins Deutsche 
iibertragen. Frankfort on the Main, 1883. 

M. Rawicz. Der Tractat Rosen ha-Schanah ins Deutsche 
iibertragen. Frankf. on the Main, 1886. 

M. Rawicz. Der Tractat Sanhedrin iibertragen und mit 
erlauternden Bemerkungen versehen. Frankf. 1892. 

D. O. Straschun. Der Tractat Taanith ins Deutsche iiber- 
tragen. Halle, 1883. 

August Wunsche. Der Babyl. Talmud in seinen haggadischen 
Bestandtheilen iibersetzt, 2 volumes. Leipsic, 1886-88. 

Isaak Levy. Der achte Abschnitt aus dem Tractate Sabbath 



Translations. 91 

(Babli und Jeruschalmi) iibersetzt und philologisch behandelt. 
Breslau, 1892. 

c. French Tnanslations. 
/. Michel Rabbinowicz, this translator of several parts of 
the Babyl. Talmud adopted the proper method in presenting the 
mental labor embodied in that vYork. In selecting a treatise for 
translation he followed the example of Alphasi (see above p. 72) 
in his celebrated epitome of the Talmud, in omitting all digres- 
sions from the main subject, and all episodic Agadas which the 
compilers interspersed among the stern dialectical discus- 
sions. The main part thus cleared from all disturbing and 
bewildering by-work, is then set forth in a clear and fluent 
translation which combines correctness with the noted ease 
and gracefulness of the French language. Necessary explan- 
ations are partly given in short foot-notes, and partly, 
with great skill, interwoven into the translation of the text. An 
understanding of the intricate dialectical discussions is greatly 
facilitated by appropriate headings, such as: Question; Answer; 
Rejoinder; Reply; Objection; Remark, etc. Besides, each treatise 
is prefaced by an introduction, in which the leading principles 
underlying that part of the Talmud are set forth. Of this lucid 
translation the following parts have appeared: 

1. Legislation criminelle du Talmud, containing the treatise 
of Sanhedrin and such portions of Maccoth as refer to the punish- 
ment of criminals. Paris, 1876. 

2. Legislation civile du Talmud, traduction du traite 
Kethnboth. Paris, 1880. 

3. Nouveau Commentaire et traduction du traite Baba 
Kamma. Paris, 1873. 

4. Nouveau Commentaire et traduction du traite Baba 
Metzia. Paris, 1878. 

5. Nouveau Commentaire et traduction 'du traite Baba 
Bathra. Paris, 1879. 

6. La me'dicine, les pa'iens etc. This volume contains such 
portions of thirty different treatises of the Talmud as refer to 
medicine, paganism, etc. Paris, 1879. 

M. Schwab^ added to the first volume of his French trans- 



92 Historical and Literary Introduction 

lation of the Palestinian Talmud, (Paris, 1871) also a translation 
of Berachoth of the Babyl. Talmud. 

d. English Translation. 

A. W. Strcane. Translation of the treatise Chagiga. 
Cambridge, 1891. 

C. The Palestinian Talmud. 

§ 54. 
a. Latin Translation. 

Blasius Ugolinus published in volumes XVII-XXX of his 
Thesaurus antiquitatum sacrarum (Venice 1755-65) the following 
treatises in Latin: Pesachim (vol XVII); Shekalim, Yoma, 
Succah, Rosh Hashanah, Taanith, Megilla, Chagiga, Betza, 
Moed Katan (vol. XVIII) ; Maaseroth, Maaser Sheni, Challah, 
Orlah, Biccurim (vol. XX); Sanhedrin, Maccoth (vol. XXV); 
Kiddushin, Sota, Kethuboth (vol. XXX). 

b. German Translations. 

Joh. Jacob Rabc ) besides translating Berachoth in connec- 
tion with that treatise in the Babylonian Gemara, as mentioned 
above, published: Der Talmudische Tract at Peak, iibersetzt und 
erlautert. Anspach, 1781. 

August Wiinsche. Der Jerusalcmische Talmud in seinen 
haggadischen Bestandtheilen zum ersten Male in's Deutsche 
iibertragen. Zurich, 1880. 

c. French Translation. 

Moisc Schwab. Le Talmud de Jerusalem traduit pour la 
premiere fois X volumes. Paris, 1871-90. 

d. English Translation. 

M. Schwab, the author of the French translation just 
mentioned, published in English: The Talmud of Jerusalem. 
Vol. I Berachoth. London, 1886. 



CHAPTEE XII. 

BIBLIOGRAPHY 



OF MODERN WORKS AND MONOGRAPHS ON TALMUDIC SUBJECTS. 

(Arranged with reference to subjects and in alphabetical 
order of authors). 

§ 55. 
AG A DA. 

W. Backer. Die Agada der Tannaiten. Strasburg, Als. 1884. 

" Die Agada der Babylonischen Amoraer, Strasburg, 

Als. 1878, 
" Die Agada der Palastinischen Amoraer, Strasburg, 

Als. 1891.- 
S. Bach, Die Fabel im Talmud u. Midrasch (in Monatsschrift 

f. Geschichte u, Wissenschaf t d. Judenthums, XXIV, 

1875; XXV, 1876; XXIX 1880; XXX, 1881; XXXII, 

1883; XXXIII, 1884). 
M. Grunbaum. Beitrage zur vergleichenden Mythologie aus der Hag- 

gada (in Zeitschrift d. D. Morgenl. Gesellschaft, vol. 

XXXI, 1877). 
M. Gudemann. Mythenmischung in der Haggada (in Monatschrift f . 

Geschichte u. Wissenschaft d. Judenthums, vol. 

XXV, 1876). • 
D. Hoffmann. Die Antonius Agadoth im Talmud (in Magazin fur 

Wissenschaft des Judenthums, vol. XIX, 1892). 

ARCHAEOLOGICAL. 
Ad. BriXll. Trachten der Juden im nachbiblischen Alterthum 

Frankf . on the M. 1873. 
Iranz Delitzsch. Jiidisches Handwerkerleben zur Zeit Jesu, Elangen, 

1879. Translated by B. Pick "Jewish Artisan Life." 

New York, .1883. 
M. H. triedlander. Die Arbeit nach Eibel u. Talmud. Brunn, 1891. 



94 Historical and Literary Introduction. 

L. Herzfeld. Metrologische Voruntersuchungen, Geld und Gewicht 

der Juden bis zum Shluss des Talmuds (in Jahrbuch 

fur Geschichte der Juden u. des Judenthums, vol. Ill 

pp. 95-191, Leipsic, 1863). 
Alex. Kohut. 1st das Schachspiel im Talmud genannt? (Z. d. D. M. 

G. XLVI, 130-39). 
Leopold Low. Graphische Requisiten und Erzeugnisse bei den Juden, 

Leipsic, 1870-71. 
" " Die Lebensalter in der Jud. Literatur. Szegedin, 1875. 

B. Zuckerman. Ueber Talmudische Miinzen u. Gewichte. Breslau, 

1862. 
'■ Das jtidische Maassystem. Breslau, 1867. 

BIOGRAPHICAL. 
Sam. Back. Elischa ben Abuja, quellenmassig dargestellt. Frankf . 

on the M., 1891. 
A. Blumenthal. Rabbi Meir, sein Leben u. Wirken. Frankf. 1889. 
M. Braunschweiger. Die Lehrer der Mischna, ihr Leben u. Wirken. 

Frankf. on the M., 1890. 
S, Fessler. Mar Samuel, der bedeutendste Amora, Breslau, 1879. 

M. Friedlander. Geschichtsbilder aus der Zeit der Tanaiten u. Amoraer. 

Briinn, 1879. 
S. Gelbhaus. R. Jehuda Hanasi und die Redaction der Mischna. 

Vienna, 1876. 
D. Hoffmann. Mar Samuel, Rector der Academie zu Nahardea. Leipsic. 

1873. 
Armand Kaminka. Simon b. Jochai (chapter in the author's Studien 

zur Geschichte Galilaeas. Berlin, 1890). 
Raphael Levy. Un Tanah (Rabbi Mei'r), Etude sur la vie et Fenseignement 

d'un docteur Juif du II siecle. Paris 1883. 
M. I, Muhlf elder. Rabh. Ein Lebensbild zur Geschichte des Talmud. 

Leipsic, 1873. 
J. Spitz. Rabban Jochanan b. Sakkai, Rector der Hochschute 

zu Jabneh. Berlin, 1883. 
I. Trenel. Vie de HiUel 1' Ancient. Paris, 1867. 

H. Zirndorf. Some Women in Istael (pp. 119-270 portraying distin- 
guished women of the Talmudic age). Philadelphia* 

1892. 



Bibliography. 95 

CHRONOLOGY AND CALENDAR. 

L. M. Lewisohn. Geschichte u. System des judischen Kalenderwesens. 

Leipsic, 1856. 
B. Zuckermann. Materialien zur Entwickelung der altjudischen Zeit- 

rechnung. Breslau 1882. 

CUSTOMS. 

Joseph Perles. Die jiidische Hochzeit in nachbiblischer Zeit. Leipsic, 
1860. 
" Die Leichenfeierlichkeiten im nachbiblischen Juden- 
thum. Breslau, 1861. 
Remark. An English translation of both of these two monographs 
is embodied in "Hebrew Characteristics", published by the American 
Jewish Publication Society. New York, 1875. 

M. Fluegel, Gedanken iiber religiose Brauche und Anschauungen . 
Cincinnati, 1888. 

DIALECTICS. 

Aaron Hahn. The Rabbinical Dialectics. A history of Dialecticians 
and Dialectics of the Mishna and Talmud, Cincinnati. 
1879. 

EDUCATION. 

Blach-Gudensberg. Das Paedagogische im Talmud. Halberstadt. 1880. 
M. Duschak. Schulgesetzgebung u. Methodik der alten Israeliten. 

Vienna, 1872. 
Sam. Marcus. Zur Schul-Paedagogik des Talmud. Berlin, 1866. 
Joseph Simon. L' education et 1' instruction d'apres la Bible et le Talmud 

Leipsic, 1879. 
J. Wiesen. Geschichte und Methodik der Schulwesens im talmudi- 

schen Alterthum. Strasburg, 1892. 

ETHICS. 

M. Bloch Die Ethik der Halacha, Budapest, 1886. 

Herman Cohen. Die Nachstenliebe im Talmud. Ein Gutachten . 

Marburg, 1886. 
M. Duschak. Die Moral der Evangelien u. des Talmuds. Briinn 1877. 
H. B. Fassel. Tugend-und Rechtslehre des Talmud. Vienna, 1848. 



96' Historical and Literary Introduction. 

E. Grunebaum. Die Sittenlehre des Judenthums andern Bekentnissen 

gegentiber. Strasburg, 1878. 
31. Gudemann. Nachstenliebe. Vienna, 1890. 
Alex. Kohut. The Ethics of the Fathers. A series of lectures. New 

York, 1885. 
L. Lazarus. Zur Charakteristik der talmudischen Ethik. Breslau, 

1877. 
Marc. Levy. Essai sur la morale de Talmud. Paris 1891. 
Luzzatto. Israelitische Moraltheologie, deutsch von M. Joel, 

Breslau, 1870. 
S. Schaffer. Das Recht und seine Stellung zur Moral nach talmud- 

ischer Sitten, und Rechtslehre. Frankf. on the M., 1889. 
N. J. Weinstein. Geschichtliche Entwickelung des Gebotes der Nachsten- 
liebe innerhalb des Judenthums, kritisch beleuchtet. 

Berlin, 1891. 

EXEGESIS. 

H. S. Hirschfeld. Halachische Exegese. Berlin, 1840. 
" " Die Hagadische Exegese. Berlin, 1847. 

S. Waldberg. Darke Hashinnuyim, on the methods of artificial inter- 
pretation of Scriptures in the Talmud and Midrash. 
(in Hebrew) Lemberg, 1870. 

GE GRAPHY AND HISTORY. 
A. Berliner. Beitrage zur Geographie u. Ethnographie Babyloniens 

im Talmud u. Midrasch. Berlin 1883. 
J. Derenbourg. Essai sur l'histoire et la geographie de la Palestine 

d'apres les Talmuds et les autres sources rabbiniques. 

Paris, 1867. 
H. Hildesheimer. Beitrage zur Geographie Palastinas. Berlin, 1886. 
Armand Kaminka. Studien zur Geschichte Galilaeas. Berlin, 1890. 
Ad. Neubauer. La geographie du Talmud. Memoire couronn£ par 

l'academie des inscriptions et belles-lettres. Paris, 1868. 

LAW. 

a. In General. 

Jacques Levy. La jurisprudence du Pentateuque et du Talmud. 
Constantine. 1879. 



Bibliography. 



97 



S. Mayer. Die Rechte der Israeliten, Athener und Romer. 

Leipsic, 1862-66. 

1. L. Saalschutz. Das Mosaische Recht, nebst den vervollstandigenden 
thalmudisch-rabbinischen Bestimmungen. 2-nd Edi- 
tion. Berlin, 1853. 

S. Schaffer. Das Recht u. seine Stellung zur Moral nach talmudischer 
Sitten-und Kechtslehre. Frankf. on the M., 1889. 

1. M. Wise. The Law (in the Hebrew Review, Vol. I pp. 12-32. 

Cincinnati, 1880). 

b. Judicial Courts. 

J. Selden. De Synedriis et praefecturis juridicis veterum Ebrae- 

orum. London, 1650; Amsterd. 1679; Frankf., 1696. 

E. Hoffmann. Der oberste Gerichtshof in der Stadt des Heiligth urns. 
Berlin, 1878. 

c. Evidence in Law. 

2. Blumenstein. Die verschiedenen Eidesarten nach mosaisch-talmud- 

ischem Rechte. Frankf. on the M., 1883. 
Z. Frankel. Der Gerichtliche Beweis nach mosaisch talmudischem 
Rechte. Berlin. 1846. 

D. Fink. "Miggo" als Rechtsbeweis im bab. Talm. Leipsic, 1891. 

d. Criminal Law. 
O. Bahr. Das Gesetz iiber falsche Zeugen, nach Bibel u. Talmud. 

Berlin, 1862. 
P. B. Benny. The Criminal Code of the Jews. London, 1880. 
M. Duschak. Das mosaisch-talmudische Strafrecht. Vienna, 1869. 
J. Fur st. Das peinliche Rechtsverfahren im jiid. Alter thum. 

Heidelberg, 1870. 

E. Goitein. Das Vergeltungsprinzip im bibl. u. talmudischen Straf- 

recht (in Zeitschrift fur Wissenschaft d. J. Vol. XIX. 
S. Mendelsohn. The Criminal Jurisprudence of the ancient Hebrews 

compiled from the Talmud and other rabbinical 

writings. Baltimore, 1891. 
Julius Vargha. Defense in criminal cases with the ancient Hebrews, 

translated from the first chapter of the author's large 

work "Vertheidigung in Criminal fallen", and publisch- 

ed in the Hebrew Review, Vol. I pp. 254-268. Cincinnati, 

1880. 



98 



Historical and Literary Introduction. 



Thonisson. 



M. Block. 



H. B. Fassel. 



L. Auerback. 
S. Keyzer. 



I. Wiesner. Der Barm in seiner geschichtlichen Entwickelung auf 

dem Boden des Judenthums. Leipsic, 1864. 

La peine de mort dans le Talmud. Brussels, 1886. 
e. Civil Law. 

Die Civilprocess-Ordnung nach mosaisch-rabbinischem 

Rechte. Budapest. 1882. 

Das mosaisch-rabbinische Civilrecht. Gr. Kanischa. 

1852-54. 

Das mosaisch-rabbinische Gerichtsverfahren in civil- 

rechtlischen Sachen. Gr. Kanischa, 1859. 

Das jiidische Obligationsrecht. Berlin, 1871. 
Dissertatio de tutela secundum jus Talmudicum. Ley den 

1847. 
f. Inheritance and Testament. 
L. Bodenheimer. Das Testament. Crefeld, 1847. 
Eduard Gans. Grundztige des mosaisch-talmudischen Erbrechts (in 

Zunz' Zeitschrif t fur die Wissenschaf t des Judenthums 

p. 419 sq.). 
Moses Mendelssohn. Ritualgesetze der Juden, betreffend Erbschaften 

Vormundschaft, Testamente etc. Berlin, 1778, and 

several later editions. 

De Successionibus in bona defuncti ad leges Hebrae 

orum. London, 1646; Frankf., 1696. 
g. Police Law. 

Das mosaisch-talmudische Polizeirecht. Buda Pest, 

1878. Transated into English by I. W. Lilienthal in the 
Hebrew Review Vol. I, Cincinnati 1881. 

h. Law of Marriage and Divorce. 

Die Familie nach mos.-talmud. Lehre. Breslau, 1867. 

Das mosaisch-talmudische Eherecht. Vienna, 1864. 

Grundlinien des mosaisch-talmud. Eherechts. Breslau, 

1860. 

Die Autonomic der Rabbinen und das Princip der 

judischen Ehe. Schwerin, 1847. 
Lichtschem. Die Ehe nach mosaisch-talm. Auffassung. Leipsic, 

1879. 



Joh. Selden. 



M. Block. 



P. Buckholz 
M. Dusckah. 
Z. Frankel. 

S. Holdheim, 



Bibliography. 



99 



M. Mielziner. The Jewish Law of Marriage and Divorce in ancient 
and modern times, and its relation to the law of the 
State. Cincinnati, 1884. 

Joh. Selden. Uxor Ebraica sive de nuptiis et divortiis etc. London, 
1646. 

J. Stern. Die Frau im Talmud. Zurich, 1879. 

i. Laws Concerning Slavery. 

M. Mielziner. Verhaltnisse der Sklaven bei den alten Hebraern nach 
biblischen und talmudischen Quellen, Copenhagen, 
(Leipsic), 1859. 
An English translation of this treatise was published by Prof. H. 

I. Schmidt in the Gettysburg Evang. Review vol XIII, No 51, and 

reprinted in the Am. Jew's Annual, Cincinnati, 1886. 

I. Winter. Stellung der Sklaven bei den Juden. Breslau, 1886. 

Zadok-Kahn. L'esclavage selon la Bible et le Talmud. Paris, 1867, 
" " Sklaverei nach Bibel u. Talmud. Deutsch von Singer. 

Berlin, 1888. 

LINGUISTICS. 

A. Berliner. Beitrage zur hebraischen Grammatik im Talmud u. 

Midras«h. Berlin, 1879. 
Ad. Brull Fremdspracbliche Redensarten u. YYorter in den Tal- 

muden u. Midraschim. Leipsic, 1869. 
N. Brull. Fremdsprachliche Worter in den Talmuden u. Midra- 

schim (in Jahrbucher fur jiid. Geschichteu. Literatur I. 

123-220). Frankf. o. M., 1874. 
Jos. Perles. Etymologische Studien zur Kunde der rabbinischen 

Sprache und Alterthumer. Breslau, 1871. 
O. Rillf. Zur Lautlehre der aramaisch- talmudischen Dialecte. 

Breslau, 1879. 
Mich. Sachs. Beitrage zur Sprac -u nd Alterthumsforschung. 2 

volumes. Berlin, 1852-u-*. 

MATHEMATICS. 

B. Zucktrmanv Fas Mathematisohe im Talmud. Beleuchtung und 

Elauterung der Talmudstellen mathematischen Inhalts. 
bxeslau, 1878. 



100 



Historical and Literary Introduction. 



Jos. Bergel. 

M, Duschak. 
L. Lewysohn. 
1mm. Low. 



MEDICINE, SURGERY etc. 
Jos. Bergel. Die Medizin der Talmudisten. Leipsic, 18S5. 
Joach. Halpern. Beitrage zurGeschichte der talm. Chirurgie. Breslau, 

1869. 
A. H. Israels. Collectanea Gynaecologica ex Talmude Babylonico. 

Groningen, 1845. 
L. Katzenelsson. Die Osteologie der Talmudisten. Eine talrnudisch- 
anatonische Studie (in Hebrew). St. Petersbourg, 188^. 
R. I. Wunderbar. Biblisch - talmudische Medicin, 2 volumes. Riga 
(Leipsic), 1850-60. 
NATURAL HISTORY AND SCIENCES. 
Studien iiber die naturwissenschaftlichen Kenntnisse der 
Talmudisten. Leipsic, 1880. 
Zur Botanik des Talmud. Buda Pest, 1870. 
Die Zoologie des Talmuds. Frankf. on the XL, 1858. 
Aramaische Pflanzennamen. Leipsic, 1881. 
PARSEEISM IN THE TALMUD. 
Alexander Kohut. Was hat die talm. Eschatologie aus dem Parsismus 
aufgenommen? (in Z. d. D. M. G. vol. XXC pp 553-91). 
" " Die judische Angelologie und Daemonologie in ihrer 

Abhangigkeit vom Parsismus. Leipsic, 1866. 
" " Die talmudisch - midraschische Adamssage in ihrer 

Riickbeziehung auf die pers. Yima und Meshiasage, 
in Z. d. D. M. G. XXV pp. 59-91. 
" " DieNamen der pers. u. babylonischen Feste im Talmud 

(in Kobak's Jeschurun, vol. VIII, 49-61). The same 
subject in Revue, des Etudes Juives, Vol. XX IV. 

POETRY. 
The Poetry of the Talmud. New York, 1880. 
PROVERBS, MAXIMS, PARABLES. 
Rabbinische Blumenlese. Leipsic, 1844. 
" " Rabbinische Sprachkunde. Vienna, 1851. 

J. R. Furstenthal. Rabbinische Anthologie. Breslau, 1834. 
Giuseppe Levi. Parabeln, Legenden u. Gedanken aus Talmud u. 
Midrasch,aus dem Italienischen ins Deutsche tibetragen 
von L. Seligmann Leipsic, 1863. 
Lowenstein. Sentenzen, Spriiche u. Lebensregeln aus dem Talmud^ 
Berlin, 1887. 



8. Seldes. 



L. Dukes. 



Bibliography. 101 

PSYCHOLOGY. 

M. Jacobson. Versuch einer Psychologie des Talmud. Hamburg, 

1878. 
1. Wiesner. Zur talmudischen Psychologie (in Magazin ftirjudische 

Geschichte und Literatur, Vol. I, 1874, and II, 1875]. 

RELIGIOUS PHILOSOPHY AND HISTORY. 

M. Friedldnder. Ben Dosa und seine Zeit, oder Einfluss der heidnischen 
Philosophie auf das Judenthum u. Christenthum. 
Prague, 187a. 

M. Gudemann. Religionsgeschichtliche Studien. Leipsic, 18"6. 

M. Joel. Blicke in die Religion sgeschichte zu Anfang des II 

Jahrhunderts. Breslau, 1880. 

A. JSIager. Die Religionsphilosophie des Talmud. Leipsic, 1864. 

SUPERNATURALISM AND SUPERSTITION. 

Gideon Breaker. Das Transcendental e, Magik und magische Heilarten 

im Talmud. Vienna, 1850. 
David Joel. Der Aberglaube und die Stellung des Judenthums zu 

demselben. 2 parts. Breslau, 1881-83. 
Alex. Kohut. Judische Angelologie u. Daemonologie in ihrer Abhan- 

gigkeit vom Parsismus. Leipsic, 1866. 
Sal. Thein. Das Princip des planetarischen Emflusses nach der 

Anschauung des Talmud. Vienna, 1876. 
S. Wolff sohn. Oneirologie im Talmud, oder der Traum nach Auffas- 

sung des Talmuds. Breslau, 1874. 

POPULAR TREATISES AND LECTURES ON THE TALMUD. 

Tobias Cohn. Der Talmud. Ein Vortrag. Vienna, 1866. 

Emanuel Deutsch. What is the Talmud? (in the Quarterly Review for 

October, 1867, reprinted in the Literary Remains, 

New York, 1874). 
M. Ehrentheil. Der Geist des Talmud. Breslau, 1887. 
Karl Fischer. Gutmeinung liber den Talmud. Vienna, 1883. 
Sams. Eaph. Hirsch. Beziehung des Talmuds zum Judenthum und zur 

sozialen Stellung seiner Bekenner. Frankf. o. M., 1884. 
P. I. Hershon. Talmudic Miscellany. London, 1880. 



102 



Historical and Literary Introduction. 



P. L. Hershon. Treasures of the Talmud. London, 1882. 
Abram S. Isaacs. Stories from the Rabbis. New York. 1893. 
A. Jellinek Der Talmud. Zwei Reden. Vienna, 1865. 

Der Talmndjude. 4 Reden. Vienna, 1883-83. 

Gutachten iiber den Talmud. Breslau, 1877. 

Der wahre Talmud jude. Die wichtigsten Grundsatze 

des talmudischen Schriftthums iiber das sittliche Leben 

des Menschen . Berlin, 1893. 

Die "Wahrheit iiber den Talmud, (aus dem Franzosischen 

"La verite sur le Talmud", iibersetzt von S. Mannheimer, 

Basel, 1860. 

La Contro verse sur le Talmud sous Saint Louis, Paris, 

1881. 

The Talmud, Selections from the contents of that an- 
cient book. London, 1876. 
Ludwig Philippson. Zur Characteristik des Talmuds (in "WeJt- 

bewegende Fragen". Vol. II, pp. 349-416. Leipsic, 

1869). 
Em. Schreiber. The Talmud. A series of (4) Lectures. Denver, 1884. 
L.. Stern. Ueber den Talmud. Vortrag. Wurzburg, 1875. 

J. Stem. Lichtstrahlen aus dem Talmud. Zurich, 1883. 

A. A. Wolff. Talmudf jender (the Enemies of the Talmud), in Danish. 

Copenhagen, 1878. 
August Wunsche. Der Talmud. Eine Skizze. Zurich, 1879. 



M. Joel. 
Albert Katz. 



S. Klein. 



Isidore Loeb. 



H. Polano. 



CHAPTER XIII. 

OPINIONS ON THE VALUE OF THE TALMUD. 

§ 57. 

• 

No literary monument of antiquity has ever been subject to 
so different and opposite views and opinions, as the Talmud. Its 
strict followers generally loo ked upon it as the very embodiment 
of wisdom and sagacity, and as a work whose authority was 
second only to that of the Bible. In the non- Jewish literature 
it was often decried as ' 'one of the most repulsive books that 
exist", as "a confused medley of perverted logic, absurd subtile- 
ties, foolish tales and fables, and fall of profanity, superstition 
and even obscenity", or at the most, as "an immense heap of 
rubbish at the bottom of which some stray pearls of Eastern 
wisdom are hidden." 

It is certain that many of those who thus assumed to pass 
a condemning judgment upon the gigantic work of the Talmud 
never read nor were able to read a single page of the same in the 
original, but were prompted by religious prejudice and antag- 
onism, or they based their verdict merely on those disconnected 
and often distorted passages which Eisenmenger and his consorts 
and followers picked out from the Talmud for hostile purposes. 

Christian scholars who had a deeper insight into the Talmud- 
ical literature, without being blinded by religious prejudices, 
expressed themselves quite differently on the character and the 
merits of that work, as may be seen from the following few 
quotations. 

Johann Buxiorf, in the preface to his Lexicon Chald. et 
Talmudicum, says: "The Talmud contains many legal, medical, 
physical, ethical, political, astronomical, and other excellent 
documents of sciences, which admirably commend the history of 
that nation and time; it contains also luminous decisions of an- 
tiquity; excellent sayings; deep thoughts, full of grace and sense; 
and numerous expressions which make the reader not only better, 
but also more wise and learned, and which, like unto flashing 



104 Historical and Literary Introduction. 

jewels, grace the Hebrew speech not less than all those Greek 
and Roman phrases adorn their languages." 

Other favorable opinions expressed by Christian scholars of 
the sixteenth to eighteenth centuries are collected in Karl 
Fischer's "Gutmeinung iiber den Talmud der Hebraer." Vienna, 
1883. 

Of such scholars as belong to our time, the following may be 
quoted here. 

The late Prof. Delitzsch in his "Jiidisches Handwerkerleben 
zur Zeit Jesu" says: 

"Those who have not in some degree accomplished the 
extremely difficult task of reading this work for themselves, will 
, hardly be able to form a clear idea of this polynomical colossus. 
It is an immense speaking-hall, in which thousands and tens of 
thousands of voices, of at least five centuries, are heard to com- 
mingle. A law, as we all know from experience, can never be 
so precisely formulated that there does not remain room for 
various interpretations; and question upon question constantly 
arises as to the application of it to the endless multiplicity of the 
existing relations of life. Just imagine about ten thousand 
decrees concerning Jewish life classified according to the spheres 
of life, and in addition to these, about five hundred scribes and 
lawyers, mostly from Palestine and Babylon, taking up one after 
another of these decrees as the topic of examination and debate, 
and, discussing with hair-splitting acuteness, every shade of mean- 
ing and practical application; and imagine, further, that the fine- 
spun thread of this interpretation of decrees is frequently lost in 
digressions, and that, after having traversed long distances of such 
desert-sand, you find, here and there, an oasis, consisting of 
sayings and accounts of more general interest. Then you may 
have some slight idea of this vast, and of its kind, unique, juridic 
codex, compared with whose compass all the law-books of other 
nations are but Lilliputians, and beside whose variegated, buzzing 
market din, they represent but quiet study-chambers." 

J. Alexander, in his book on The Jews] their Past, Present 
and Future (London, 1870), says: 



Opinions on the value of the Talmud. 105 

"The Talmud, as it now stands, is almost the whole literature 
of the Jews during a thousand years. Commentator followed 
upon commentator, till at last the whole became an immense 
bulk; the original Babylonian Talmud alone consists of 2947 folio 
pages. Out of such literature it is easy to make quotations which 
may throw an odium over the whole. But fancy if the production 
of a thousand years of English literature, say, from the "History" 
of the venerable Bedeto Milton's "Paradise Lost," were thrown 
together into a number of uniform folios, and judged in like man- 
ner; if because some superstitions monks wrote silly "Lives of 
Saints," therefore the works of John Bunyan should also be 
considered worthless. The absurdity is too obvious to require 
another word from me. Such, however, is the continual treat- 
ment the Talmud receives both at the hand of its friends and of 
its enemies. Both will find it easy to quote in behalf of their 
preconceived notions, but the earnest student will rather try to 
weigh the matter impartially, retain the good he can find even in 
the Talmud, and reject what will not stand the test of God's word." 

Tne impartial view of the Talmud taken by modern Jewish 
scholars, may be seen from the following opinion expressed by 
the late Prof, Graetz in his "History of the Jews" (vol. IV. 
308 sq.). 

"The Talmud must not be considered as an ordinary literary 
work consisting of twelve folios; it bears not the least internal 
resemblance to a single literary production; but forms a world 
of its own which must be judged according to its own laws. It 
is, therefore, extremely difficult to furnish a specific sketch of the 
Talmud, seeing that a familiar standard or analogy is wanting. 
And however thoroughly a man of consummate talent may have 
penetrated its spirit and become conversant with its peculiarities, 
he would scarcely succeed in such a task. It may, in some 
respects, be compared with the Patristic literature, which sprang 
up simultaneously. But on closer inspection, this comparison 
mill also fail.... 

The Talmud has at different times been variously judged 
on the most heterogeneous assumptions; it has been condemned 
and consigned to the flames, simply because it was presente 



106 Historical and Literary Intrduction. 

in its unfavorable aspect without taking into consideration its 
actual merits. It cannot be denied that the Babylonian Tal- 
mud labors under some defects, like any other mental product, 
which pursues a single course with inexorable consistency and 
undeviating dogmatism. These defects may be classified under 
four heads: the Talmud contains some unessential and trivial 
subjects, which it treats with much importance and a serious 
air; it has adopted from its Persian surroundings superstitious 
practices and views, which presuppose the agency of interme- 
diate spiritual beings, withcraft, exorcising formulas, magical 
cures and interpretations of dreams and, hence, are in conflict 
with the spirit of Judaism; it further contains several uncharit- 
able utterances and provisions against members of other na- 
tions and creeds; lastly it favors a bad interpretation of Scrip- 
ture, absurd, forced and frequently false commentations. For 
these faults the whole Talmud has been held responsible and 
been denounced as a work devoted to trifles, as a source of im- 
morality and trickery, without taking into consideration, that 
it is not a work of a single author who must be responsible 
for every word, and if it be so, then the whole Jewish people 
was its author. Over six centuries are crystallized in the Tal- 
mud with animated distinctness, in their peculiar costumes, 
modes of speech and of thought, so to say a literary Herculaneum 
and Pompeii, not weakened by artistic imitation, which trans- 
fers a colossal picture to the narrow limits of a miniature. It is, 
therefore, no wonder, if in this world sublime and mean, great 
and small, serious and ridiculous, Jewish and heathen elements, 
the altar and the ashes, are found in motley mixture. Those 
odious dicta of which Jew-haters have taken hold, were in 
most cases nothing else but the utterances of a momentary in- 
dignatian, to which an individual had given vent and which were 
preserved and embodied in the Talmud by over-zealous disci- 
ples, who were unwilling to omit a single expression of the 
revered ancients. But these utterances are richly counterbal- 
anced by the maxims of benevolence and philanthropy towards 
every man, regardless of creed and nationality, which are also 
preserved in the Talmud. As counterpoise to the rank super- 



Opinions on the value of the Talmud. 107 

stition, there are found therein sharp warnings against supersti- 
tious, heathen practices (Darke Emori), to which subject a 
whole section, under the name of Perek Emorai, is devoted. » 

"The Babylonian Talmud is especially characterized and 
distinguished from the Palestinian, by high-soaring contempla- 
tions, a keen understanding, and flashes of thought which fit- 
fully dart through the mental horizon. An incalculable store 
of ideas and incentives to thinking is treasured in the Talmud, 
but not in the form of finished themes that may be appropriated 
in a semi-somnolent state, but with the fresh coloring of their 
inception. The Babylonian Talmud leads into the laboratory 
of thought, and its ideas maybe traced from their embryonic 
motion up to a giddy height, whither they at times soar into the 
region of the incomprehensible. For this reason it became, 
more than the Jerusalemean, the national property, the vital 
breath, the soul of the Jewish people ". 

Why study the Talmud ? 

§58. 

Some years ago, the author addressed the Classes of the 
Hebrew Union College on this question. An abstract of that 
address may find here a proper place for the benefit of younger 
students: 

Upon resuming our labors for a new scholastic year, I A\ r ish 
to address the students regarding that branch of instruction 
which I have the privilege of teaching in the collegiate classes 
of this institution. I wish to answer the question: 

FOR WHAT PURPOSE DO WE STUDY THE TALMUD? 

There was a time — -and it is not so very long since it passed 

by there was a time when such a question would scarcely 

have entered into the mind of one who was preparing for the 
Jewish ministry. For the Talmud was then still regarded as 
the embodiment of all religious knowledge ail Jewish lore. 
Its authority was considered second only to that of the Bible, 
its study regarded as a religious service, a God-pleasing work in 



» eabbath 66a; Toseptha ch. VII, VIII. 



108 Historical and Literary Introduction. 

which all pious and literate men in Israel were engaged, even 
those who did not aspire to a rabbinical office. He, to whom 
the Talmud was a terra incognita was looked upon as an Am 
Hdarets, a rustic and illiterate man, who had no right to ex- 
press an opinion in religious matters. How then could he who 
wanted to become a religious guide and leader in Israel ask, 
for what purpose is the Talmud to be studied ? The Talmudic 
literature was the very source of the Jewish law. By it all 
conditions of the religious and moral life were ordered. How 
could a rabbi expect to be able to answer and decide the many 
religious questions laid before him daily, without a thorough 
acquaintance with that source ? 

But it is quite different in our time, which looks upon the 
Talmud with less reverential eyes. The mere study of its lite- 
rature is not any longer considered a religious act that secures 
eternal bliss and salvation; neither is the Talmud any longer 
regarded as the highest authority by whose dicta questions of 
religion and conscience are to be finally decided. 

Of what use is the study of the Talmud in our time ? Is it 
nowadays absolutely necessary even for the Jewish theologian, 
for a Jewish minister, to cultivate this hard and abstruse braneh 
of literature ? Would it not be more useful if our students in- 
stead of devoting a part of their valuable time to this obsolete 
and antiquated study would apply it to some other branch of 
knowledge which is of more import to, and has more bearing 
upon the present time? 

It sometimes seemed to me as if I could read this question 
from the faces of some of our students during the Talmudic in- 
struction, especially when we just happened to have before us 
some abstruse passages in the Talmud in which seemingly quite 
indifferent and trifling subjects are minutely treated inlengl In 
discussions, or where the whole train of thought widely differs 
from modern conception and modern ways of thinking. 

Nay, I have even heard such a question from the lips of 
men who take great interest in our college, of earnest and judi- 
cious men who are highly educated and versed in our literature 
and who themselves in their youth imbibed spiritual draughts 



> 

Opinions on the value op the Talmud. 109 

from the Talmudic fountain. Why trouble our students with 
that irksome and useless branch of literature, why not instead 
of it rather take up other subjects of more modern thought? 

Let us, therefore, shortly consider the question: For what 
purpose do we study the Talmud, or why is that study indispen- 
sable for every one who prepares for the Jewish ministry ? 

In the first place, my young friends, I wish to call your at- 
tention to the fact that the Talmud is a product of the mental 
Labors of our sages and teachers during a period of eight hun- 
dred to one thousand years, and that the pages of this volumin- 
ous literary work offer a natural reflection of whatever the 
Jewish mind has thought, perceived and felt during that long 
period under the most different circumstances and times, under 
joyful and gloomy events, under elevating and oppressing in- 
fluences. 

I beg you to consider furthermore what a powerful and 
decided influence this gigantic literary work after its final con- 
clusion has exercised upon the mind and the religious and mo- 
ral life of the professors of Judaism during fourteen centuries 
up to our time. Consider, how it is to be ascribed to their 
general occupation with, and veneration for the Talmud that 
our ancestors during the dark centuries of the Middle Ages did 
not become mentally hebetated and morally corrupted, in spite 
of the degradation and systematic demoralization which they 
had been exposed to. For while the study of the more dialectic 
part of that literature preserved their intellectual powers ever 
fresh and active and developed some of the greatest minds, the 
reading of those popular sayings and impressive moral and re- 
ligious maxims with which the Talmudic writings are so amply 
provided, fostered even within our masses that unshaken faith- 
fulness and that unparalleled firmness of character by which 
they resisted all persecutions and all alluring temptations. 

Take all this into consideration, and you will perceive that 
none can expect to know and understand Judaism as histori- 
cally developed, without knowing the Talmud, without being 
familiar with the spirit of that vast literature which proved 



1 1 Historical and Literary Introduction. 

such a powerful agency in the development of Judaism and in 
its preservation. 

Let me also tell you, that he is greatly mistaken who ima 
gines that modern Judaism can entirely discard and disregard 
the Talmud in religious questions. Although its authority is 
not any longer respected as absolutely binding, albeit under. 
the changed circumstances in which we are living, many laws 
and customs treated and enjoined in the Talmud have become 
obsolete and impracticable, and though many religious views ex- 
pressed by the Talmudists are rejected as incompatible with' 
modern thoughts and conceptions, it is a fact, that Juda- 
ism nowadays still rests on the foundation which is laid down 
in the Talmud. Thus for instance, the elements of our ritual 
prayers and the arrangement of our public service, our festive 
calendar' and the celebration of some of our holiest festivals, 
the marriage law and innumerable forms and customs of the re- 
ligious life are, though more or less modified and fashioned ac- 
cording to the demands of our time, still on the whole permeat- 
ed and governed by the Talmudic principles and regulations. 

You can therefore never expect to have a full and clear 
insight into our relgious institutions without being able to go 
to the source from which they emanated. 

I could also speak of the great importance of the Talmud 
in so far as it contains a vast fund of informations which are of 
decided value to general history and literature and to different 
branches of science, but I will remind you only of its great sig- 
nificance in regard to two branches of knowledge which are of 
vital import to Jewish theology and the Jewish ministry. I 
refer to the interpretation of the Bible and to Ethics. 

The great value of the Talmud for Bible exegesis and Bible 
criticism is generally acknowledged even by non- Jewish scholars. 

In regard to its value for Ethics I shall quote here a pas- 
sage from an elaborate and lucid article on the Talmud which the 
venerable Rabbi Dr. Samuel Adler in New York published lately 
in one of the American Encyclopedias. He says: 

" With the consideration of the ethical significance of the 
Talmud we approach the highest level, the crowning portion of 



Opinions on the value op the Talmud. Ill 

the whole work. Not but that we meet with passages that 
must be rejected by a pure morality ; prevailing views and em- 
bittering experiences have certainly exercised a disturbing in- 
fluence on the ethical views of various spiritual heroes of the 
Talmud; but these are isolated phenomena, and disappear, com- 
pared with the moral elevation and purity of the overwhelming 
majority of the men of the Talmud, and compared with the spirit 
that animates the work'as a whole. What is laid down as the 
moral law in the Talmud can still defy scrutiny at the present 
day; and the very numerous examples of high moral views and 
actions on the part of the Talmudists are such as can not be 
found in any work of antiquity, and must still excite the admir- 
ation of the reader of the present day, in spite of the ceremonial 
fetters which they bore, and in spite of the occasional narrow- 
ness of their point of view." 

To impress you the more with the necessity of the Talmudic 
studies for a clear conception of Judaism and its history, I could 
also quote the opinions of many of our greatest scholars, but 
shall confine myself only to a quotation from the writings of two 
of our most renowned scholars whom none will suspect of hav- 
ing been biased by a too great predilection for the Talmud; one 
is the late Dr. Geiger, and the other our great historian, the 
late Dr. Jost. 

Geiger {Das Judenthum und seine Geschichte I. p. 155) in 
speaking of the Talmud and the rabbinical literature, says: 

"Gigantic works, productions of gloomy and brighter per- 
iods are here before us, monuments of thought and intellectual 
labor; they excite onr admiration. I do not indorse every 
word of the Talmud, nor every idea expressed by the teachers 
in the time of the Middle Ages, but I would not miss a tittle 
thereof. They contain an acumen and power of thought which 
fill us with reverence for the spirit that animated our ancestors, 
a fulness of sound sense, salutary maxims — a freshness of opinion 
often bursts upon us that even to this day exercises its enlive- 
ning and inspiring effect." 



112 Historical and Ltterary Introduction. 

Jost in his Geschichte des Judenthum s und seiner Seeten II., 
202, characterizes the Talmud by the following masterly words: 

"The Talmud is a great mine, in which are imbedded all 
varieties of metals and ores. Here may be found all kinds of 
valuables, the finest gold and rarest gems, as also the merest 
dross. Much has been unearthed that has realized countless 
profit to the world. The great spiritual work whose outcome 
has been apparent in the advancement of religion has shown 
that the Talmud is not only of incalculable value in the pursuit 
of wisdom, but that it has a self-evident significance for all times, 
which can not be shown by any mere extracts from its pages, 
and that it can not be disregarded on the plea of its antiquity 
as valueless in the knowledge of the Jewish religion. Indeed 
it is and must remain the chief source of this knowledge, and 
particularly of the historical development of the Jewish religion. 
More than this, it is the abode of that spirit which has inspired 
that religion, these many centuries, that spirit from which even 
those who sought to counteract it could not escape. It is and 
will remain a labyrinth with deep shafts and openings, in which 
isolated spirits toil with tireless activity, a labyrinth which 
offers rich rewards to those who enter impelled by the 
desire to gain, not without hidden dangers to those who venture 
wantonly into its mazes and absorb its deadly vapors. Re- 
ligion has created this work, not indeed to give utterance in an 
unsatisfactory way to the great questions of Deity and Nature, 
Mortality and Eternity, and not to carry on controversies upon 
the proper formulation of articles of faith, but to give expres- 
sion to a religion of deed, a religion designed to accompany 
man from the first steps in his education until he reaches the 
grave, and beyond it; a guide by which his desires and actions 
are to be regulated at every moment, by which all his move- 
ments are to be guarded, that takes care even of his food and 
drink, of his pleasures and pains, of his mirth and sorrow, and 
seeks to elevate him, at all times, to an enunciation of the pur- 
est faith. 

It is thus that this spirit, which breathes from the Talmud, 
enters into the nation's inmost life. It oilers repeated recitals 



Opinions on the value of the Talmud. 113 

of the various modes of thinking, practising, believing, of the 
true and false representations, of hopes and longings, of know- 
ledge and error, of the great lessons of fate, of undertakings 
and their consequences, of utterances and their effects, of per- 
sons and their talents and inaptitudes, of words and examples, 
of customs, both in matters of public worship and private life; 
in short, of all the happenings, past or cotemporary, in the 
time which the Talmud comprises, i. e., a period of nearly one 
thousand years, excluding the Bible times. 

Hence, also, its great value to antiquarians in the frequent 
allusions to facts, opinions and statements, to modes of expres- 
sion and grammatical construction, to peculiarities of every 
kind, which at the same time afford a view of the development 
of mankind, such as no other work of the past gives. 

To treat the Talmud with scorn because of its oddnes, on 
account of much that it contains that does not conform to our 
maturer modes of thinking, because of its evident errors and 
misconceptions — errors from ignorance or errors in copying, — 
to throw it overboard, as it were, as useless ballast, would be 
to insult all history, to deprive it of one of its strongest limbs, to 
dismember it. 

To dam up its channels by taking away the Talmud, would 
be to close the access to the head waters and living sources of 
the Jewish religion, and thus leave her again in a desert land, 
after the tables of the law have already called forth a world of 
life and activity. It would be turning one's back, as it were, 
denying and disregarding one's own. There is a historical jus- 
tification for the sharply defined modes of worship and religious 
forms that have their embodiment in set words and in fixed 
deeds. For this we must look to the Talmud. Judaism is 
rooted in the Talmud and would be tossed about in mid-air if 
torn from its soil, or require a new planting and a new growth." 

In conclusion, my young friends, let me say this: 

If our College had no other purpose than to graduate com- 
mon Sabbath school teachers who should be able to occasional- 
ly deliver popular though superficial lectures, the study of the 



114 Historical and Literary Introduction. 

Talmud as well as that of our rabbinical and philosophical litera- 
ture, might have been stricken from the course of your studies. 
But our College has a higher aim and object. Its object is to 
educate future guides and leaders of our congregations, to ed u- 
cate banner-bearers of Judaism, representatives and cultivators 
of Jewish knowledge and literature. 

You can never expect to answer this purpose without a 
thorough knowledge of, and familiarity with, that vast literature 
that offers us the means to follow and understand the religious 
formation, the growth and the entire course of development of 
Judaism from its beginning to the present time." 



PART II. 



LEGAL HERMENEUTICS OF THE TALMUP 



LEGAL HERMENEUTICS OP THE TALMUD, 

INTRODUCTION. 

a. Definition. 

§ 1. 

Hermeneu.tic3 is the science of interpretation or of explai- 
ing the meaning of an author's words, according to certain 
rules. The term is especially applied to the exegesis or inter- 
pretation of the sacred Scripture. 

Although hermeneutics and exegesis are synonyms, as both 
words from which they are derived ipwvevetv and Hw £ ^^ ai 
mean to explain, interpret, still literary usage makes that differ- 
ence between them, that the term hermeneutics refers to that 
branch of science which establishes the principles and rules of 
interpretation^ while exegesis is the actual application of those 
principles and rules. 

By Legal Hermeneutics of the Talmud we understand 
an exposition of those principles and rules which the teachers 
of the Talmud established in their interpretation of the Biblic- 
al Law. 

b. Methods of Interpretation. 

§ 2. 

The Talmud distinguishes between two methods of Script- 
ural interpretation, one which is termed Peshat, and the 
other Derash. 

Peshat (tfifcPS) is the plain interpretation, where a law or a 
passage in Scripture is explained in the most natural way ac- 
cording to the letter, the grammatical construction, and 
the spirit of the passage. Hence the talmudic phrase: »T»Ert£fi 
fcHpl the plain meaning, the immediate and primary sense of a 
Scriptural passage (Chullin 6a). 



118 Heemeneutics of the Talmud. 

Derash (from t£H"l to search, investigate) is that method 
by which it is intended, lor certain reasons, to interpret a 
passage in a more artificial way which often deviates from the 
plain and natural meaning. The result of this method of inter- 
pretation is termed EHIO that which is searched out, the artifi- 
cial deduction, as '2 BPH BmD HT this artificial interpretation 
was made by that certain teacher, Mishna Shekalim VI, 6. 

As an illustration of these two methods of interpretation 
we refer to the following passage in Deut. XXIV, 16. lnDV $b 

/i:n cm- by rvcw 

"The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, 
neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers." The 
plain and natural meaning of this passage is that the family of a 
criminal shall not be involved in his punishment. But the arti- 
ficial interpretation of the Rabbis which is also adopted in the 
Targum Onkelos takes the word by in the sense of nV7y2 
through the testimony 1 and explains this passage to the effect 
that the testimony of relatives must never be accepted in a crim- 
inal or civil case. Talin. Sanhedrin fol. 27b. 

C. TWO KINDS OF MlDRASH. 
§ 3. 

There are two kinds of Midrash. Where the interpreta- 
tion bears on the enactment or determination of a law, be it 
a ritual, ceremonial, civil, or criminal law, it is called #YTD 
Ftibn Interpretation of Ha/aeha, or legal interpretation. 

But where the Midrash does not concern legal enactments 
and provisions, but merely inquires into the meaning and signi- 
ficance of the laws or where it. only uses the words of Scripture 
as a vehicle to convey a moral teaching or a religious instruc- 
tion and consolation, it is called mJK BPHD Interpretation of 
the Agada, homiletical interpretation. 

The following examples will illustrate both kinds of Midrash. 

1) In Lev. XIX, 3 the law reads: IKTH V2N1 1DN B^K 
u Ye shall fear every man his mother, and his father". In the 
interpretation of this passage the Rabbis explain that the ex- 



Introduction. 119 

pression fc^tf every man must here not be taken in its literal 
sense, as if referring to the man (the son) only, and not also to 
woman (the daughter), for the plural form "ye shall fear" in- 
cludes the daughter as well as the son in this divine injunction 
of filial respect and obedience: 

? pjD ton «r»K xbtt ^ p« «r»K 
aw j*o <hn ism now kihot 

Talm. Kiddushin 30b. 

This is Midrash Halacha, as it concerns the determination 
of the law. 

Commenting on the same passage, the Rabbis further ex- 
plain why in this passage the first place is given to the mother, 
while in the decalogue where filial love to parents is command- 
ed, the father is mentioned first. The reason offered is, 
that as a rule children fear the father, but love the mother more 
particularly. (Ibid. fol. 31a.) This explanation belongs rather 
to the Agada. 

2) In Exodus XX, 25 the law reads : "And if thou wilt 
make me an altar of stone, thou shalt not build it (jnns) of 
hewn stone: for if thou lift up thy iron tool upon it, thou hast 
polluted it." 

The Midrash Halacha of this passage emphasizes the ob- 
jective pronoun jnns and concludes that the prohibition of 
hewn stones is restricted to the altar only, but in building the 
temple such stones may be used: 

tavn rw nrc nn« tea rra hju nna >k -q 

Mechilta, Yithro XI. 

The Midrash Agada to this passage explains ingeniously 
the reason why the application of iron is here called a pollution 
of the altar; it is because iron abridges life, the altar prolongs 
it; iron causes destruction and misery, the altar produces re- 
conciliation between God and man ; and therefore the use of 
iron cannot be allowed in making the altar. (Mechilta ibid. ; 
compare also Mishna Middoth III, 4.) 



120 Hermeneutics of the Talmud. 

The hermeneutic rules for Midrash Agada resemble in 
many respects those of Midrash Halacha, in others they differ. 
We propose to treat here especially of the Hermeneutics of 
the Halacha. 

ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF MIDRASH HALACHA. 

a. Circumstances that necessitated artificial 

INTERPRETATION. 
§ 4. 

Ever since the time of Ezra, the Scribe, and especially 
since the religious and political revival under the Maccabees, 
the law embodied in the Pentateuch was generally looked upon 
as the rule of Israel's life. But side by side with this written 
law, anDSD* min, went an unwritten, oral law nS byiV ITVin. 

This consisted partly of a vast store of religious and na- 
tional customs and usages which had been established in the 
course of several centuries and handed down orally from gen- 
eration to generation; partly of decrees and ordinances enacted 
according to exigencies of the changed times and cir- 
cumstances by the Sopherim and the succeeding authorities, 
the Sanhedrim 

As long as the validity of this oral law had not been 
questioned, there was no need of founding it on a Scriptural 
basis. It stood on its own footing, and was shielded by the 
authority of tradition. From the time hovever when the 
Sadducean ideas began to spread, which tended to undermine 
the authority of the traditional law and reject everything not 
founded on the Scriptures, the effort was made by the teachers 
to place the traditions under the shield of the word of the 
Thora. To accomplish this task, the plain and natural inter- 
pretation did not always suffice. More artificial methods had 
to be devised by which the sphere of the written law could be 
extended so as to offer a basis and support for every traditional 
law and observance, and, at the same time, to enrich the sub- 
stance of this law with new provisions for cases not yet provi- 



Introduction. 121 

ded for. This artificial interpretation which originated in the 
urgent desire to ingraft the traditions on the stem of Scripture 
or harmonize the oral with the written law, could, of course, in 
many instances not be effected without strained constructions 
and the exercise of some violence on the biblical text, 1 as is illus- 
trated in the following example. 

It was a rule of law established by tradition, firstly, that 
judicial decisions are rendered by a majority of votes; secondly 
that in capital cases, the majority of one vote was sufficient for 
the acquittal, but for the condemnation a majority of at least 
two votes was required; thirdly that in taking the votes in a 
criminal case, it must be commenced from the youngest judge, 
in order that his opinion and vote shall not be influenced by 
that of his older colleagues. 

When the question came up to find a biblical basis for 
these rules, reference was made to the following passage in Ex. 
XXIII, 2 which reads: 

rny-6 rai nns rvnn xb 
rmnb ran +vn» rmaA -n by njyn rVi 

' 'Thou shalt not follow the many to evil, neither shalt thou 
speak in a case to deviate after the many to pervert justice". 

In its simple sense this passage is a warning for the judge 
as well as for the witness not to be influenced by the unjust 



1 This effort to base traditional institutions -and usages on the 
written law is not without a certain parallel-though under quite differ- 
ent circumstances and influences— in the history of jurisprudence 
among other nations, as may be seen from the following interesting 
notice in Lieber's '-Legal and Political Hermeneutics," page 239. Speak- 
ing of the law which grew up in the course of centuries by the combina- 
tion of the lex scripta, or Roman law, with the customs of the various 
nations that received it, he says: "A favorite field for the exercise of 
professional ingenuity was the interpretation of the Roman law in such 
manner as to find therein formal written authority for the institutions, 
rules and usages that the Germanic races had inherited from their 
ancestors. For a century past it has been one of the chief tasks of the 
continental jurists, and especially of the class among them known as 
Germanists, to restore these remains of national law to their original 
shape, free from the distortions and disguises forced upon them by 
this Romanizing process." 



122 Hermeneutics of the Talmud. 

opiniou ti the multitude in a law suit, but to follow his own 
conviction in giving his vote or his testimony. But the arti- 
ficial interpretation forced upon this passage a different mean- 
ing. By separating the last three words miDr6 D*ZH "HnK from 
the context and forming them as a separate sentence :the Rabbis 
found therein an express biblical precept c 'to lean to the major- 
ity", that is," to decide doubtful cases by a majority of votes. 
The first part of the passage "thou shalt not follow the many 
to evil" was interpreted to mean "do not follow the simple maj- 
ority (of one) for condemnation, as for the acquittal, but it re* 
quires at least a majority of two votes to condemn the accused 
(Mishna Sanhedrin I, 6) 

The word 3"H in the middle part of the passage, being 
here exceptionally written in the text without a mater lectionis 
21, so as to admit the word to be read Rabh (the superior), one 
of the Babylonian teachers made use of this circumstance to in- 
terpret 2"\ by rttjjfi $b "thou shalt not express thy opinion af- 
ter the superior", hence the younger members of a criminal 
court have to vote first (Talin. Sanhedrin 36a). 

Conclusions derived by authoritative interpretations from 
the Mosaic Law were, in general, endowed with the same au- 
thority and sanctity as the clear utterances of that Law, and 
termed minn JD or, in the Aramaic form, KfiwilfcHD (derived 
from the Biblical law). 

In many instances, however, the Talmudic teachers freely 
admit that the meaning which they put upon the text was not 
the plain and natural interpretation; that "the natural sense 
of a passage must never be lost sight of" 2 , and that their strain- 



' Maimonides ('2 BH1C nilVOJI 'D) holds that laws derived from 
the Mosaic law by means of the hermeneutic rules are, in general, not 
to be regarded as biblical laws (minn |D) except when expressly char- 
acterized as such in the Talmud. But this somewhat rational view 
is strongly criticized by Nachmanides (in his annotations to that book) 
who shows that from the Talmudical standpoint every law which 
the Rabbis derived by the authoritative interpretation from s-icred 
Scripture, has the character and sanctity of a Mosaic Law. 

2 IttlPB ^TE N¥V NIpCH px Sabbath 63a; Yehamoth lib; 24a. 



Introduction. 123 

ed interpretation must be regarded merely as an attempt u to 
provide an established custom and law with a Biblical sup- 
port". 1 

Remark. There are some legal traditions of an ancient date most- 
ly concerning the ritual law, for which the Rabbis were unable to find 
a biblical support or even a mere hint. They are termed n&fcb i"Dpn 
TDD "traditional laws handed down from Moses on Sinai". That this 
phrase is not to be taken literally, but often as merely intended to desig- 
nate a very old tradition the origin of which cannot be traced, is evid- 
ent from Mishna Eduyoth VIII, 7. Maimonides in the introduction to 
his Mishna Commentary enum erates the traditions mentioned in the 
Talmud by that appellation to the number of twenty three. This enu- 
meration, however has been found not to be quite correct, as the tradi- r 
tions designated by that name actually amount to the number of fifty 
five. Compare Herzfeld, Geschichte des Volkes Israel II, 227-232. 

b. The earliest collection of Hermeneutic Rules. 

§5. 

Hillel the Elder, who nourished abount a century before 
the destruction of the second temple, is mentioned as 'having 
been the first to lay down certain hermeneutic rules (JTHD), 
seven in number, for the purpose of expounding the written 
law and extending its provisions. Some of these rules were 
probably already known before Hillel, though not generally 
applied; but it was his merit to have fixed them as standard 
rules of legal interpretation. The headings of his seven rules 
are : 

1. "IDirn bpi the inference from minor and major. 

2. rw rPPTJ/ the analogy of expressions. 

3. intf DIHSD 2S P22j the generalization of one special 
provision. 

4. D^irD "WD 28 p2/ the generalization of two special 
provisions. 

1 "»*npK pm VW3DDW "iW NrD^il Erubin 4b; Succah 28a; Kidd. 
9a. Compare also the phrase : ndH*3 tfriDDDK *np Berachoth 41b; 
Yoma 80b; B. Metzia 88b and elsewhere very often used. 



124 Hermeneutics of the Talmud. 

5. ta*)Bi bb2 t the effect of general and particular terms. 

6. nrtN DlpDD 12 frWD,the analogy made from an another 
passage. 

T. IJ'jyD ID^n 12*T, the explanation derived from the 
context. 

These seven rules of Hillel having later been embodied in 
the system of R. Tshmael, their fuller contents and application 
will be explained in the exposition of the single rules of that sys- 
tem. 1 

c. A new method of interpretation introduced 

BY NAHUM. 

§6. 

Besides the seven rules of Hillel which were generally 
adopted, some other peculiar methods of interpreting the Scrip- 
ture were introduced by succeeding teachers for the sake of 
making new deductions from the written law. Thus Nahum of 
Gimzo, a contemporary of R. Johanan ben Zaccai, originated a 
method which is termed BljPDI ^21 the extension and limitation. 
According to this method certain particles and conjunctions 
employed in the Mosaic law were intended to indicate the ex- 
tension or limitation of its provisions, so as to include the ad- 
ditions of tradition, or exclude what tradition excludes. As 
extensions were regarded especially the words: Dtf ,ritf ,DJ and 
b2, and as limitations the words: "jtf, p and pi. 

This method is illustrated by the following examples: 

1) The word r\H which marks the direct objective case 
agrees in form with the preposition HS with. Hence this word 
in the passage Deut. X, 20: tfvn "pn^N v "' Htf is interpreted 
D^n ^dlT\ nM"[b "It is to include the wise men", who are 
to be revered along with God (Pcsachim 22b.). 

2) The principle that "acts done through our agent are 
as if done by ourselves", is derived from the passage Numbers 
XVIII, 28: CHS D3 "ID^n p "Thus ye also shall offer an 

1 These seven rules of Hillel are quoted in Tosephta Sanhedrin ch. 
VII; Aboth of R. Nathan ch. XXXVII and in the introductory chapter 
of the Siphra. 



Introduction 125 

heave offering", by interpreting : rrttfn nw ni31^ DJ "this 
also is to include your age?it\ he may offer your heave offering in 
your place". Kiddushin 41b. 

3) That the rigorous precepts of the Sabbath do not 
apply to cases where life is in danger (jyfij mp^S), is derived 
from the limiting word *jfc in the passage Exod. XXXI, 1 3 : 
HlCtf/ri Tlinaty nw "|K : "merely my Sabbaths you shall keep" 
by interpreting p^ri7 "|tf, this "merely" excludes such cases. 
Yoma 85b. 

d. Development of this method by R. Akiba. - 

This new method of R. Nahum of Gimzo was not general 
ly approved by his contemporaries* One of its opponents was 
R. Nehunia ben Hakana who insisted upon retaining only the 
rules of Hillel. 1 But in the following generation, the celebrat- 
ed R. Akiba resumed the method of his former teacher Nahum 
of Gimzo, and developed it into a system. The underlying 
principle of that system was that the language of the Thora 
differs from human language. The latter often uses more 
words, to express ideas, than necessary; superflous words being 
inserted either for the sake of grammatical form or for the sake 
of rhetorical nourish and emphasis. Not so the language in 
which the divine law was framed. Here not a word, not a 
syllable and not even a letter is superfluous, but all is essential 
and of vital importance to define the intention of a law and to 
hint at deductions to be made therefrom. According to this 
principle the indication of an extension and limitation of the 
law is not confined to those few particles pointed out by 
Nahum of Gimzo, but every word or part thereof which is not 
absolutely indispensable to express the sense of the law is de- 
signed to enlarge or restrict the sphere of its provisions. 

Thus R. Akiba and the followers of his system found indi- 
cations for the intended extension of a law in the repetition of 



See Talm. t Shebuoth 



126 Hermenbutics of the Talmud, 

a word 1 ; in the absolute infinitive joined with the finite forms 
of a vera;"' in the conjunction ltf 3 and in the conjunctive i . In- 
dications for an entended limitation of the law are found by 
laying stress either on a demonstrative pronoun/ or on the 
definite article n 6 , or on the personal pronoun added to a 
verb 7 , or on a pronominal suffix 6 or on any noun 9 or verb 10 
occurring in that law. 

The new hermeneutic rules which R. Akiba thus added to 
those of Hillel and Nahum offered entirely new ways and means 
to find a Scriptural basis for the oral laws, and to enrich its 
Bubstance with many valuable deductions. 

e. R. Ishmael's Rules. 

§8. 

The ingenious system %f R. Akiba, though received with ad- 
miration by many of his contemporaries, kad also its opponents. 
One of the most prominent among these was R. Ishmael b. 
Elisha. He claimed : niH V2 jlt^D min H"DT "The divine 
Law speaks in the ordinary language of Men". Therefore, no 
special weight ought to be attached to its tuims of speech and 
repetitions so customary in human language. He consequently 
rejected most of the deductions which ft. Akiba based on a 
seemingly pleonastic word, superfluous syllable or letter, and 

1 f. i. Pesachim 36a: mn HIVD HIVD ; Yebamoth 70a : yr>$ ^k 
^iyn rrQ"6 compare also Shebuoth 4b: D^JJJI D^JJJ. . 

2 Sanhedrin 64b man mDH ; B. Metzia 31 a. b. DTfiWI 3fc>n, r6fc> 

rb&n, aiwn ary etc. 

:| Sanhedrin 34b: JTlY\b mT IN; B. Kamma 53b: D^2n HN m3"6 IN 

4 Sanhedrin 51b: m2~b mi TU ; Yebamoth 68b : pi nil y""l; 
compare also Kethuboth 103a : Jjmn yfWi TIN nmb R"WV VV 

5 Horioth 9a: mTW ptTI IT p"lp HT ; Chulin 42a: rvn ,rvnn DNT 

vb mrux. 

6 Pesachim 5a: (DWW) D"B> *? nD? |Wmn ^1 fiTIp 3WDJ. 

7 Maccoth 2b: p&Bflt N^l NV1 ,DW Kin 5 compare also Horioth 13b: 

b Kiddushin 17b: pn n« «S D)15li> myi; Sanhedrin 46a miK JV?W 

9 Kiddushin 18a: OTJ33 «?1 lnyjJQjSanhedrin 52a: jap? Ens ^N- 
10 Gittin 20a: ppn fc6l 3H31 ; Kiddushin 64a : ntyiy D^bn ,:6lV fi6l 



Introduction. 127 

admitted only such deductions which could be justified by the 
3pirit of the passage of law under consideration. As standard 
rules for interpretation he recognized only those laid down by 
Hillel which he however enlarged to thirteen by subdividing 
some of them, omitting one, and adding a new one of his own. 
The thirteen rules of R. Ishmael are: 

1. IDim bp identical with Hind's Rule I. 

2. mi? nTti identical with Hillel's Rule II. 

3. 2$ pn contraction of Hillel's Rules III and IV. 

5 bby\ tDIS -j subdivision of Hillel's Rule V. 

7. 8. 9. 10 and 11 are modifications of Hillel's Rule V. 

12 1S1DD Iftbn nmi WtyD inbn "121 with some addition 
identical with Hillel's Rule VII. 

13 PIT r\H PIT D^TDDh D^WS W, this rule is not at all 
found among Hillel's. 

Among those rules of R. Ishmael, the sixth rule of Hillel 
"the analogy made from another passage" is omitted, but this 
omission is seeming only, since that rule Avas, under differnt 
names: TOTi (the analogy) and i^'iD <1D (as we find-analogy) 
included partly in the rule of rw mVJ, partly in that of 3tf pj2, 
as will be seen further on in the fuller exposition of these two 
rules. 

R. Ishmael's thirteen rules were generally adopted as the 
authoritative rules of rabbinical interpretation without however 
supplanting the methods of R. Akiba which continued to be 
favored by many sf the Rabbis and were applied even by some 
of the immediate disciples of R. Ishmael. ' 

Remark. R. Eliezer, son of R. Jose the Galilean, again ealnrg^d 
the hermeneutic rules to the number of thirty two. But as his rules 
mostly refer to the homiletical interpretation, they do not strictly be- 
long to our subject. The Talmud though incidentally praising the emi- 
nence of this teacher (Chulin 89), nowhere mentions his rules. But in 



1 Compare B. Kamma 84a: igrn KTJT Kip bWP '1 , 31 ; also Kid- 
dushin 43: nUI^ IK KJH bxVDW 'l V2h 



128 Hermeneutics op the Talmud. 

theAgadic interpretation of the Amoraim,some of his rules are applied. 
A Baraitha of R. Eliezer containing his thirty two rules is not men- 
tioned in the Rabbinical writings before the tenth century. This Ba- 
raitha is embodied in the books: Sefer Kerithoth and Halichotli Olam 
of which we shall speak in the following paragraph. 

Literature on the Hermeneutic Rules. 
§9. 

The thirteen rules of R. Ishmael are collected in the intro- 
ductory chapter of the Siphra. 

R. Abraham b. David of Posquieres (Y2K"l)/ m the XII cen- 
tury, wrote some valuable annotations on that chapter in his 
commentary on the Siphra. 

R. Solomon b. Isaac ( v 'tSH), the celebrated commentator of 
the Talmud, in the XI century, occasionally explained, in his 
lucid way, the single rules where they are applied in the Talmu- 
dical discussions. 1 

Of standard works treating of the hermeneutic rules we 
mention: 

nWD 'D by R. Samson of Chinon, in the XIY century. 

D^IJ? JTD^n 'D by R. Jeshua b. Joseph Halevt, flourishing 
in the XY century, in Spain. 

An abstract of the two last mentioned works is found in 
an appendix to rtCTft J"ODD in the usual Talmud editions. 

.' phK JWD 'D by Aaron b. Chayim, XVI century. This very 
valuable treatise forms the first part of the author's greater 
work called pntf pip which is a commentary on the Siphra. 

nyiDty P^ 'D by R. Solomon b. Abraham A/gazi, XV II cen- 
tury. 



1 A separate treatise on the hermeneutic rules, ascribed to this 
commentator and published in Kobak's "Ginze Nistaroth" 1 11 under 
the title of flVlBn bv W BTTS seems to be spurious. It is, at most, a 
compilation of his various incidental remarks on the single rules found 
in his commentary on the Talmud. 



Introduction. 129 

HDDn r^nn 'D, "by Jacob Chagiz XVII, century. 

Of modern works on our subject the following deserve to 
be mentioned: 

Halachische Exegese by H. S. Hirschfeld, Berlin, 1840. 

nVfi-^fi by Mordechai Plongian, Wilna, 1849. This Heb- 
rew book treats exclusively of the rule of Gezera Shava. 

Palaestinische und alexandrinische. Schriftforschang by Z. 
Fra?ikel, Breslau, 1854. 



EXPOSITION OF R. ISHMAEL'S HERMENEUTIC RULES. 

CHAPTER I. 

THE INFERENCE OF KAL YE-CHOMER. 

The rule which occupies the first place in the hermeneutic 
system of Hillel as well as in that of R. Ishmael, is termed 
"iDim to- This rule is very frequently used in the Talmudic 
discussions. It has quite a logical foundation, being a kind 
of syllogism, an inference a fortiori. 

i. Definition. 
§ 10. 

In the Talmudic therminology the word bp (light in weight) 
means that which, from a legal point of view, is regarded as 
being less important, less significant, and loin (heaviness) that 
which is comparatively of great weight and importance. By 
the termiDim bp then is meant an inference from the less to the 
more important, and vice versa, from the more to the less im- 
portant. 

For the sake of convenience, we shall use the word minor 
instead of bp, and major instead of loin ', Dut we must caution 
against confounding the meaning of these words with that of 
the terms major and minor, commonly used in logic in regard 
to syllogisms. 

ii. Principle. 

§ 11. 
The principle underlying the inference of iDim bp is, that 
the law is assumed to have the tendency to proportionate its 
effect to the importance of the cases referred to, so as to be more 
rigorous and restrictive in important, and more lenient and 
permissive in comparatively unimportant matters. Hence, if a 
certain rigorous restriction of the law is found regarding a mat- 
ter of minor importance, we may infer that the same restriction 
is the more applicable to that which is of major importance, 



The Inference prom Minor and Major. 181 

though that restriction be not expressly made in the law for this 
ease. And on the other hand, if a certain allowance is 
made by the law regarding a thing of major importance, we may 
properly conclude that the same allowance is the more applicable 
to that which is of comparatively minor importances 

Thus, for instance, rcttf is in some respects regarded as 
being of more importance (TiDn) than a'T (a common holiday). 
If, therefore, a certain kind of work is permitted on rcttf, we 
justly infer that such a work is the more permissible on tt"V ; 
and vice versa, if a certain work is forbidden on ta"V it must all 
the more imperatively be forbidden on n 3tP. Mishna Betza V. 2: 

natw rp 11D8 wvz ibx bs 

in. Biblical Prototype. 

§ 12. 

The inference, drawn in Scripture (Numbers xii. 14) on a 
certain occasion is regarded as a prototype of this manner of 
of drawing inferences which is employed in the Talmudic Halacha. 
Miriam had been punished with leprosy as a sign of the Lord's 
disfavor, and when the question arose how long she ought to be 
shut out of the camp in consequence of that disfavor, the 
answer was ; ' 'If her father had but spit in her face, should she 
not be ashamed (shut up) seven days? Let her be shut out 
from the camp seven days." Here an inference is made 
from minor to major, namely, from a human father's to the 
Lord's disfavor. 

iv. Talmudic Terms. 

§ 13. 

Every iDim bp contains two things, A and B, standing 
in certain relations to each other and having different degrees 



^lodern jurisprudence admits also a certain argument which is 
quite analogous to the principle of Kal ve-chomer, as may be 
seen from the following maxim, quoted by Coke on Littleton, 260: 
"Quod in minori valet, vale bit in majori ; et quod in majori non 
valet nee valebit in minori." "What avails in the less, will avail in 
the greater ; and what will not avail in the greater, will not avail 
in the less." 



132 Hbrmeneutics op the Talmud. 

of importance. Of these two things, A, which in Talmudic 
terminology is called -[D^D (teaching) is expressly subject to a 
certain law or restriction, which by way of inference is to be 
transferred to B, termed iftb (learning). 

An inference is termed p (a judgment); to make an infer- 
ence p (to judge). The peculiar law found in the ID^D is 
called pj (to be judged from), while the law finally transferred 
to the td^> is termed pn p W3H (the result of the inference). 

Thus, in the biblical inference mentioned above, the father's 
disfavor is the ID^D, the Lord's disfavor is -jd^. The punish- 
ment in consequeace of a father's disfavor (nyzti? ubm $bn 
D"^) is the pj, and the final decision derived from this infer- 
ence (d^ nyaty n^Dn) is pin p Kan. 

v. Logical and Formal Arrangement. 
§ 14. 

Logically, every )"p (like every syllogism) has tree propo- 
sitions, of which two are the Premises and one the Conclusion. 

The first premise states, that two certain things, A and B, 
stand to each other in the relation of major and minor impor- 
tance. 

The second premise states that with one of these two things 
(A) a certain restrictive or permissive law is connected. 

The conclusion is that the same law is the more applicable 
to the other thing (B). 

The first premise is termed p fi^nn the outset of the infer- 
ence, or frO^TT Nlp^/ the most essential part of the inference ; 
while the final conclusion is called p did the end of the 
inference. 

The formal arrangement of these three propositions differs, 
however, from this logical order, as a y'p is usually expressed 
by two compound propositions, one of which is the antecedent 
and the other the consequent, as in case of an inference 
from minor to major : 

(3"n) TIDK (bp) '"& wbs HD 
(y*nv) TiDKff p wk (-non) ••■» ■wte 



The Inference from Minor and Major. 133 

" If A which in this or that respect is of minor impor- 
tance, is subject to a certain severity of the law ; ought not B, 
which is of majori mportance, be the more subject to the same 
severity?" Or, in case of an inference frome major to minor: 

(tibb) miD (mpn) •••» whs no 
(niiafiw pi^K) p» to k% (^p) "•» ^s 

"If a certain allowance is made by the law in the case 
of A, which is of major importance ; ought not the same allow, 
ance be the more made in the case of B, which is of minor 
importance ?" 

vi. Illustrations of inferences from minor to major; 

§ 15. 

a. In Exodus xxii. 13, the law is laid down that if a man 
borrow of his neighbor an animal or a thing, and the animal 
die or the object be destroyed, the borrower must restore the 
loss. But it is not expressly mentioned in this law whether the 
borrower was also responsible in cases when the borrowed 
animal or thing is stolen. The liability in this eventuality 
is then proved by way of an inference from the law regarding 
a (paid) depositary who, according to Exodus xxii. 9 — 11, is 
not bound to make restitution when the animal intrusted to 
his care died or became hurt, and yet is held responsible in 
case the intrusted thing was stolen {nbw ID^ft 21P 2tt DKl) 
The inference is made in the following way : 

nMis n^n nriDi rpvaffo tuqsp idp now no 

"If the depositary, though free from responsibility for 
damage and death, is still bound to restore the thing stolen 
from him, ought not the borrower, who is responsible for da- 
mage and death, to be the more bound to restore the thing 
stolen from him?" In this inference the depositary is minor, 
the borrower major. Baba Metzia 95a. 

b. By a similar inference it is proved that a depositary 
has to make restitution in cases where the intrusted thing has 
become lost, though the law only speaks of his responsibility 
for theft (Exodus xxii. 11): 



134 Hermeneutics op the Talmud. 

d^d wi*6 mr.pp r&n no 
p» ta irt nywe^ rasper rmMt 

"If he has to make restitution for the theft, 
which is almost an accident (as the greatest vigilance may 
not always prevent it), how much the more is restitution to be 
made for losing (the intrusted object), which is almost a 
trespass (since he was deficient in the necessary care and 
vigilance). Here pQ'ttJ is minor, JTtOK major. Baba Metzia 94b. 

vii. Illustration of an inference from major to minor. 

§ 16 
While the Sadducees took the law "Eye for eye" etc., 
(Exodus xxi. 24), literally as jus talionis, the rabbinical inter- 
pretation was, that a limb was not actually to be maimed for a 
limb, but that the harm done to the injured person was esti- 
mated and a pecuniary equivalent paid by the offender. Among 
other arguments in support of this interpretation one of the 
rabbis applied the inference from major to minor, referring to 
the law (Exodus xxi. 29—30), by which, under certain circum- 
stances, the proprietor of a beast which is notably dangerous 
and which has killed a person, is judged liable to the death 
penalty; but the capital punishment could be redeemed by 
money. Now, if the law expressly admits a pecuniary compen- 
sation in a case where the guilty person deserved capital pun- 
ishment, how much the more is a pecuniary compensation admis- 
sible in our case where it does not concern capital punishment : 

poo *6k v:y $b nrvD sirbn myv Dipoa no 
poo «te wjn *6ff Kin p nn^D my xbw jta 

Mechilta to Exodus xxi. 24. 
xni. Restrictions in the application of inferences. 

§ n 

Conclusions made by an inference are restricted by three 
rules: 1-st, piji TrTTI^ pn jD K:A VH "It is sufficient that the 
result derived from an inference be equivalent to the law from 
which it is drawn"; that is to say, the law transferred to B 
(the major), must never surpass in severity the original law in 
A (the minor), from which the inference was made. 



The Inference from Minor and Major. 135 

Thus, in the inference made in the Scripture in regard to 
Miriam, we might have expected that the time of her exclusion 
from the camp should be more than seven days, since the Lord's 
disfavor is of more consequence than a human father's; never- 
theless, Scripture says, "Let her be shut out from the camp seven 
days," wich is just as long as she would have felt humiliated if 
her father had treated her with contumely. On this passage 
the restrictive rule just mentioned is founded. An ample appli- 
cation of this rule is found in Mishna Baba Kamma II. 5. 

2d. Another restrictive rule is pin jD J*WI JJ pK ' 'The in- 
ference from minor to major is not to be applied in the penal 
law." 

The reason for this rule lies in the possibility that the con- 
cusions drawn by inference might have been erroneous, so that 
the infliction of a penalty derived from such a conclusion would 
not be justified. 2 

An application of the rule pin JD ptWiy ptf is made in Tal- 
mud Maccoth 5b, to refute an objection to the rabbinical inter- 
pretation of the law, that the punishment of false witnesses 
(Deuteronomy xix. 19), is to take place only when the judg- 
ment against the falsely accused party has not yet been executed. 
The objection to this interpretation was raised by way of an 
inference from minor to major: 

?*nn mp i^ ...pnrq pKftnn pinn: inn xb 

1 Quite analogous to this rabbinical rule is that established in 
modern law, "that penal statutes must be construed strictly. They can 
not, therefore, be extended by their spirit or by equity to any other 
offenses than those clearly described and provided for." (See Bouvier's 
Law Dictionary, article Penal Statutes). 

2 According to Talmudic interpretation, however, this rule is derived 
from the Scripture, in which the law sometimes finds it necessary to 
expressly mention a case in which the punishment is to be inflicted, 
though it could have been easily found by a mere inference from an- 
other case. Thus, for instance, in regard to the law, Exodus xxi. 33, we 
read in Mechilta : pw ittt* '3 b"T\ pO iTn3 nniB N^K "b P« B^K nnEP ^1 

dm an pp ba *b rrnbn a«n nrnsn dk hi *b w "ddk 1 n^p ly 
pin p ptww pxp izbb rrd* *a -ids: "p? \nn p nwv p mo* 

In Talmud Maccoth 5 b, the same principle is proved in a similar 
way from Leviticus xx. 17. 



1 36 Hermeneutics of the Talmud. 

"If the witnesses are to be put to death, though their false tes- 
timony has not caused the death of the innocent, how much the 
more when it really had fatal consequences?" 

But this quite logical objection is removed by the axiom ]"»n 
)*Hn ]D i"Wlj? "No penalty can be inflicted which is based 
upon an inference." 

3d. A third restrictive rule in the application of inferences 
of n"lp is laid down in Mishna Yadaim in. 2: 

"Di D"nsiD nrre min •nn prr pa 

or as the rule is expressed more concisely in Talmud Sabb. 132, 
and Nazir 57: n^HD V'p pJTJ pK "No inferences must be made 
from traditional laws to establish a new law." 1 

ix. Refutation of inferences. 

§ 18. 

. Not every n"'lp offered in the Talmudic discussions of the 
law is correct and valid. We sometimes find there very proble- 
matic and even sophistical inferences set forth merely as sup- 
positions or hypotheses; these are, however, finally refuted. A 
refutation of a mp is called fcCVS- 

Refutations may be made in two different ways: a. Either 
the correctness of the premise in the antecedent is disputed by 
showing that A (lD^E) which was supposed to be of minor 
importance (bp) is in some other respects really of major im- 
portance (m^n); pr b. The correctness .of the conclusion in the 
consequent is diputed by showing that the peculiar law con- 
nected with A (ID^D) can not be transferred to B (Iftb) as 
it is not transferred to C, which in certain respects is like B. 

The first kind of refutation is called WTI frnp^ys fcOTB a 
refutation of the most essential part of the inference, and the sec- 
ond kind is termed NTH CpDK fcCVS refutation of the final 
conclusion of the inference. The styles of expression in these two 



*R. Akiba, however, did not accept this restrictive rule, but at- 
tempted to make inferences even from traditional laws to establish a 
new law. See Sabbath 182a. Compare also Talm. Jer. Kiddushin 1, 2: 

nob p i£>S rrb rrw KrpjJ ilr \ 



The Inference from Minor and Major. 13? 

kinds of refutation are quite different. A refutation of the 
premise is usually expressed in the following way : 

("pi "pa mon) per tybsb no 
Opi "pa Tien uftw) nta "lDwn 

"Why has A that particular severe provision of the law ? 
Because it is of major importance in this or that respect. But 
how will you apply it to B, wich is not so important in the same 
respect?" 

The refutation of the final conclusion is usually expressed 
by the words, pff fTOT *X\b& "The case of C proves it;" viz.: 
that such a conclusion can not be admitted, since C is of equal 
importance with B, and still the restriction of A, which is 
intended to be transferred to B, is not applied to C. 

x. Illustration of the different kinds of refutation. ■ 

§ 19. 

1. It is well known that the law, "thou shalt not seethe 
a kid in its mother's milk," is, according to Talmudic interpre- 
tation, a general prohibition against boiling any kind of meat 
in any kind of milk. After having demonstrated that a^na "ItPa 
(meat, which in contradiction to this law had been boiled with 
milk), is forbidden to be eaten (rr^DfcO TIDK), it is undertaken 
to prove that it is likewise forbidden to make any other use 
of it (n«jri2 TIDK). One of the rabbis tried to prove this by 
way of an inference from nb^ (the fruits of a tree during the 
first three years, wich fruits were deemed forbidden to be used 
in any way nfcOrD TlDN). The inference was made in the fol- 
lowing way : 

nana rroeK m*aj> nn rnajn uto nh*\y n& 
nxmz tidw p u»n rrvay ia majw a^na wa 

' 'If those fruits, regarding which 
no law had been violated, are forbidden to be used in any 
way, ought not meat and milk, which, in violation of a law, 
have been boiled together, the more be forbidden to be used 
in any way?" 



The premise in this inference is that n7"lJJ is of 



mtm>t 



138 Hermeneutics of the Talmud 

importance (bp) compared with n"Z2\ but this premise is dis- 
puted by demonstrating that in certain respects it was, in fact, 
of major importance, since those fruits had at no time before 
been permitted to be used, while in regard to T\"Z2 there had 
been a time (namely, before being boiled together), when the 
use of each of these components was allowed : 

(nKjrn miDK -ps 2 ?) nn^nn nyv nb nn^n $b p» rfngh no 
nn^nn nyw ib rrw n"22 nown 

Chullin 115b; Mechilta to Exodus xxm. 19. 

2. Refutation of the conclusion in the inference. An illus- 
tration of this kind of refutation is furnished in Mishna Pe- 
sachim vi. 1, 2. There the law is laid down that if the eve of 
nDS happened to fall on a Sabbath, the sacrificial acts with the 
Paschal lamb, as the slaughtering, sprinkling, etc., were allowed, 
though such acts are otherwise regarded as labor (nDK^D), 
while certain preparatory acts (as carrying the lamb to the 
temple, etc.), though not regarded as real labor, but only as 
Til2^ (incompatible with a day of rest), are not allowed. This 
restriction is disputed by R. Eliezer, on the ground of the fol- 
lowing inference: 

roty- n« nim rD«te nwn Kirn* ntoTW ds pid 

?nn^n n« inT xb map dipd |W i^« 

"If slaughtering, though a real labor, abrogates the Sab- 
bath, ought not things not regarded as real labor the more ab- 
rogate the Sabbath?" 

But this logical conclusion is refuted by R. Joshua: 

mat? bflpe li tidki ro*6» dipd 12 rpnw p^dt 1 b"Y' 

"A common holiday proves that this conclusion is not ad- 
missible, for on such a day some real labors (as cooking, baking, 
etc.), are permitted, while at the same time certain actions, 
which fall under the category of maty, are positively pro- 
hibited." 

XI REINSTATEMENT OF A REFUTED INFERENCE. 

§ 20. 

When an inference has been refuted in one of the two whys 

just mentioned, the attempt is sometimes made to defend and 

retain it by removing the objection raised in the refutation. If 



The Inference from Minor and Major. 139 

the arguments proffered for this purpose are found to be correct, 
the original inference is reinstated; if not, the refutation is 
sustained and the inference finally rejected. 

Thus, for instance, in regard to R. Eliezer's inference, which 
R. Joshua refuted by the objection n'O'P tfi"P, R. Eliezer, in 
turn, attempted to remove this objection by asking: n^Kl HD 
mXD^ JTItfiH "What can that which is voluntary prove against 
a command!" That is to say, if not? actions are not allowed 
on B'T, it must be remembered that they concern only 
voluntary or private affairs, while the prohibition of such 
actions in regard to the Paschal lamb concerns a religious duty 
which is expressly commanded. 

R. Joshua was silenced by this point of argumentation, and 
seemed to be willing to withdraw his objection to R. Eliezer's 
inference; but now R. Akiba appeared in the arena to defend 
R. Joshua's objection by showing that a difference between filt5H 
and ni^D could not be admitted. He said WTW rPDlfi Pltftn 

mm ns nrrn nrxi rratr owe wni mxa "The sprinkling 

(by which an unclean person was declared to be again clean) 
may prove it, because this also is an act belonging to the cate- 
gory of rVDty> an( i at the same time concerns a command 
(since the performance of this act would make the person fit to 
bring his Paschal offering), and still it is not to be done on a 
Sabbath-day; therefore, you should net wonder that in our case 
those other acts (the carrying of the Paschal lamb, etc.), though 
concerning a fFlXB and only n*2W, are not to be done on a 
Sabbath day." 

A repeated attempt of R. Eliezer to reinstate his infer- 
ence by disputing R. Akiba's new objection, having been frus- 
trated by the latter's counter-arguments, the inference was fi- 
nally rejected. 

xii. Sophistical inferences. 

§21. 

In conclusion, we wish to call attention to some sophistical 
inferences of V'p mentioned in the Talmudic literature, which 
are refuted simply by an argument ad absurdum. 



140 Hermeneutics of the Talmud. 

One of these inferences is quoted in the Mishna Yadaim iv. 
1: "The Sadducees said, We have a strong argument against 
you Pharisees. You teach that one is responsible for a damage 
caused by his ox or ass, but not responsible for a damage 
caused by his slave or his bondwoman; is this not contrary to 
a simple rational inference?" 

jpwa av»n *»3« nn jtod ona a^n *wxw "niam ■nw dk no ' 
IpTia a^n iniw p wn rmte nna a^n ^«» tidni nay 

' 'If I be responsible for my animals regarding which I have 
no religious obligation, how much more must I then be respon- 
sible for the damage caused by my servants, regarding whom I 
have a religious obligation?" 

The Pharisees promptly answered: "No! I am responsible 
for my animals, which have no free will and deliberation, but 
not for my slaves, who have knowledge and deliberation. If I 
offend them, they may go and deliberately set fire to my neigh- 
bor's property. Should I then be bound to pay?" 

Another still more sophistical yp is mentioned in Mass. 
Derech Eretz Rabba, chapter I. A certain Jose b. Tadai, of 
Tiberias, tried, in the presence of R. Gamaliel, to ridicule the 
application of inferences in ritual laws by the following 
paralogism: 

nnaa tidk •uk na nmD w» vwk hd 
nnaa -non rsnxv p wk na iidk ■ow bp« new 

"If the marriage with one's own daughter is prohibited, 
although the marriage with her mother is permitted, how 
much more unlawful must it be to marry another married 
woman's daughter, since the marriage with her mother, a mar- 
ried woman, is positively prohibited?" 

The fallacy in this inference is that the conclusion contra- 
dicts the premise. The premise is that the marriage with one's 
own wife is lawful, while according to the conclusion any mar- 
riage would be prohibited. But R. Gamaliel answered caus- 
tically: "Go, thou, and take care of the high-priest, in regard to 
whom it is written, Only a virgin fron among his people he shall 
marry; I shall then take care ol all Israel." That is to say, 
show me, in the 'first place, how, according to the inference, the 



The Inference from Minor and Major. 141 

high-priest could enter a marriage, as Scripture expressly per- 
mits him to do, and I shall prove the same permission for all 
Israelites. 

According to another version, R. Gamaliel excommunicated 
the scoffing questioner, remarking: p "ni TIDJ?^ "DT p"T J*K 
nnnn l 'No inference can be admitted in which the conclusion 
contradicts the law." 

A masterpiece of sophistical inferences is recorded in San- 
hedrin 17. Referring to a tradition, according to which none 
could aspire for membership in the ancient Sanhedrin, without 
having given a proof of his dialectic ability by demonstrating, 
for instance, the cleanness Of those eight reptiles which the law 
(Leviticus xi. 29, 30), expressly declares to be unclean, one of 
the Amoraim jokingly remarked: "Iflhadbeen living at the 
time when the Sanhedrin was still in existence, I might have 
aspired for membership by offering the following inference: 

Tints n«DitD rmbi m» w urn: noi 
Tints «n^ p irw nKDita n:noi h^dd wnd pv 

"la serpent, though killing men and beasts, and thus in- 
creasing ritual uncleanness, still is regarded a clean animal; 1 
ought not a reptile that does not kill and increase uncleanness 
be the more regarded clean?" 

This inference, though merely intended to display dialectic 
acumen, is earnestly refuted by the following argumentum ad 
absurdum: If, according to the first premise of this inference, 
a serpent ought to be unclean on account of its capability to 
kill a person, then any wooden instrument by which a person 
can be killed ought to be unclean. 

This inference and its refutation are of some intrest as an 
instance which shows clearly that many of the Talmudic dis- 
cussions on the law had no other purpose than to be a mental 
tournament, in which the rabbis and their disciples delighted 
to exercise their intellectual powers and exhibit their skill and 
acuteness in the art of reasoning and debating. 



ir The serpent is, of course, unclean in respect to food, but it is clean 
in as far as it does not belong to those eight reptiles concerning which 
the law ordained : "Whosoever doth touch them, when they are dead, 
shall be unclean until the even." 



CHAPTER II. 

THE ANALOGY OF GEZERA SHAVA. 

Rule II. 

Introductory. 

§22. 

Analogy, in the ordinary sense of the word, denotes such 
resemolance between things, as enables us to assume of one 
what we know of the other. Although conclusions drawn 
from analogy do not in general afford certainty, but only some 
degree of probability at best, much recourse is often taken to 
such conclusions in every branch of human knowledge, espe- 
cially when all other means of argumentation fail. 

The argument from analogy is also admitted as an aid in 
modern legal interpretation, either to determine an ambiguous 
expression in a law, or to decide a case not expressly provided 
for therein, or to supply a defect in one law by reference to the 
fuller contents of another law. 

The analogy between two laws may be either real or formal 
It is real when these laws are of the same nature and the cases 
treated of in them resemble each other in material points and 
in important relations. It is formal, when the resemblance 
consists merely in some external points and relations, as in 
the wording of the laws or in the connection in which they are 
set forth. Arguments from a real analogy existing between 
different laws are very often applied in the Rabbinical interpre- 
tation. Such an analogy is termed i:^D PID of which we shall 
speak in the following chapter. But the Rabbis also admit the 
argument from a formal or external analogy. Whether also 
this kind of argumentation be in accordance with logical rea- 
soning, depends upon the nature of the conclusion which is 
intended to be drawn therefrom. If the external relations 
upon which the argument proceeds, imply also an internal 
relation which has a bearing on the conclusion, it is logical 
and valid, otherwise it is not. There are especially two rules 



The Analogy of Gezera Shaya. 143 

of Talmurtical interpretation in which use is made of this kind 
of analogy. These are termed: 1. Gezera Shava; 2. Hakkesh. 

A. GEZERA SHAYA. 

I. — TERM, CLASSIFICATION AND FORMULA. 

§23. 

The term Gezera Shava (mtP rTVTJ) means literally either 
a similar section (part) or a similar decision (decree). In the 
Talmudic phraseology it denotes an analogy of expressions, that 
is, an analogy based on identical or similar words occurring in 
two different passages of Scripture. The Gezera Shava is 
used: first, as an exegetical aid to determine the meaning of an 
ambiguous expression in a law; second, as an argument im con- 
struing laws with reference to each other, so that certain provis- 
ions connected with one of them may be shown to be applicable 
also to the other. We have, then, two kinds of Gezera Shava, 
and in order to distinguish them clearly we propose to call the 
former the exegetical and the latter the constructional Gezera 
Shava. The usual formula for both kinds of Gezera Shava is: 

— \brh noioi |*o tdhj 

]*o r|« f?hb no 

Here is said: There is said:. . . . 

As there, so here. 

II. — THE EXECxETICAL GEZERA SHAYA. 
§23. 

The theory of the exegetical Gezera Shava is expressed in 
the Talmudical phrase sometimes used in connection with this 
kind of analogy: Bmson JO OiriD TID^ "the indefinite is to be 
explained by the definite," that is to say, if an expression in one 
passage of Scripture is used ambiguously, its meaning is to be 
ascertained from another passage, where the same expression 
occurs in a connection in which it is clearly defined. 

This quite rational theory is also adopted in modern scien- 
tific exegesis in reference to parallel passages, and is in some 



144 Hermeneuttcs op the Talmud. 

measure admitted even in the legal interpretation of statutes 
and documents. 1 

Examples of exegetical Gezera Shava: 

1. In Levit. xvi. 29 the law relating to the Day of Atone- 
ment enjoins DDVYltPSJ JIN ttyri " Ye shall afflict your souls," 
without defining the nature of this affliction. But the expres- 
sion nJJJ occurs in other passages in a connection where it evi- 
dently refers to the suffering of want and hunger, as for instance 
in the passage "p^jrPl "pjTl Deut. viii. 3. (Compare also Psalm 
xxxv. 13 ipSJ Dl¥2 Wjy). Hence the expression in our pas- 
sage is to be taken in the meaning which tradition has put on 
it, i. <?., as a term of fasting. 

iinyn wy jf?rf? no 

Siphra to Levit. xvi., and Talmud Yoma, 74. 

2. In the law restricting the time of slavery, Exod. xxi. 
2, the expression "H2j; 72y is somewhat ambiguous, as it might 
mean either a servant of a Hebrew (a heathen slave belonging 
to an Israelite) or a Hebrew servant (an Israelite who has been 
sold as a slave). That the expression is to be taken in the lat- 
ter sense (the word *H3y being here used as an adjective and 



1 "One of the chief rules in ascertaining the meaning of doubtful 
words is to try first to ascertain the meaning— from other passages of 
the same text in which the ambiguous word occurs, so used that it 
le'aves no doubt — by parallels." Francis Lieber, "Legal and Political 
Hermeneutics," page 91. — The following rule of interpretation, which 
is quoted in "Broom's Legal Maxims," page 586, comes still nearer to 
the character of Talmudical Gezera Shava : ' 'Where an act of Parlia- 
ment has received a judicial construction putting a certain meaning on 
its words, and the Legislature in a subsequent act in pari materia uses 
the same words, there is a presumption that the Legislature used those 
words intending to express the meaning which it knew had been put 
upon the words before, and unless there is something to rebut that pre- 
sumption the act should be so construed, even if the words were such 
that they might originally have been construed otherwise." 



The Analogy of Gezera Shava. 145 

not as a noun) is proved by a reference to Dent. xv. 12, where 
in a repetition of the same law the servant is called "Hiyn "pntf 
"thy Hebrew brother." 1 

■■■opn T»n« ]bnb netoi ■nay 7237 j»a idk: 
ire airon ^nr» pa j^rA hd 
"■did nron ^n-w pa ;«a q« 

Mechilta to Exodus xxi. 

III. — THE CONSTRUCTIONAL GEZERA SHAYA. 

§ 25 

While the exegetical analogy is limited to the purpose of 
ascertaining the meaning of an ambiguous word, the construc- 
tional Gezera Shava intends to supply an omission in one law 
by the more explicit provisions of another law. For this pur- 
pose use is made of an identical characteristic word occurring 
in both laws. By showing that this characteristic word has 
some bearing on certain provisions made in one case, it is ar- 
gued that the same provisions must apply also in the other 
case. 

IV. — ILLUSTRATIONS. 

§ 26. 
1. Hillel, the elder, who first mentioned this rule of inter- 
pretation, applied it in the following case: The eve of the Pe- 
sach festival once happened to be on a Sabbath, and the question 
was whether it should be permitted to sacrifice *the Paschal 
lamb on such a day. Among other arguments to prove the 
permission, Hillel referred also to the rule of Gezera Shava. 
He argued : In the law concerning the daily offering it is said 
(Xum. xxiii. 2) thas it was to be brought VTJTlDa "in its due 
season," and also in the law regarding the Paschal lamb we 



ir The ancient versions, as well as the modern commentaries on the 
Bible, fully coincide with the Rabbinical interpretation of this expres- 
sion. Strange enough, Saalschuetz, in his "Mosaisches Eecht," page 
7( 2, tries to defend the other interpretation so proinptty refuted by the 
Rabbis, and claims that ^"ny 12V refers to a certain class of heathen 
slaves in the service of a Hebrew. Compare Mielziner's "Die Verhaelt- 
nisse des Sklaven bei den alten Ht-braein," page 23. 



146 Hermeneutics of the Talmud. 

read: The children of Israel shall keep the Passovor vijjiea 
"in its due season." (Num. ix. 2.) But concerning the daily 
offering the law expressly provides that it was to be brought 
also on the Sabbath day. (Num. xxviii. 10.) The expression 
HjTlDa then means that the offering must take place at the ap 
pointed time under all circumstances, even on a Sabbath; there- 
fore, the same expression njMOa in regard to the Paschal 
lamb likewise enjoins that the offering take place at the time 
appoined, even on a Sabbath day. 

-pona hjmd nDSJi nosa i-ryiD now 

natrn n« nrm T»na niD«n Hjri'o no 

natrn n« firm noaa mo»n nyiD q« 

Pesachim, page 66 a. 

2. Another example, taken from the civil law, may here 
be added to illustrate the application of the Gezera Shava in 
construing a law which appears to be defective. 

In Exod. xxii. 6-8, and 9-12, are contained two different 
laws concerning the safe-keeping of the property of a fellow- 
man. The traditional interpretation correctly distinguishes 
between these two laws. The first treats of a gratuitous guar- 
dian, while the other refers to a paid depositary who has a 
greater responsibility than the former. Now, the first law 
seems to be somewhat defective. It provides that if the ob- 
jects intrusted have been stolen from the house of the guardian 
"he shall be brought to the judges — that he has not put his 
hand to his neighbor's goods," but nothing is said of the way 
in which he was to prove this, neither is it said whether he was 
free from making restitution if he succeeded in proving this. 
The Rabbis supply this defect by means of a Gezera Shava. 
They refer to the second law in which (verse 10) the same 
phrase occurs, "that he has not put his hand to his neighbor's 
goods." Here the phrase is introduced by the words, "an oath 
of the Lord shall be between them both," and is followed by the 
words, "and shall not make restitution." Hence, according to 
this analogy, the phrase in the first case must also be supplied 



The Analogy of Gezeea Shaya. 147 

viz. : He shall be brought before the judges to take an oath « that 
he did not act fraudulently, which oath frees him from making 
restitution. 

rhyth v mrpfo mowi nwb v ninety mew 

Mechilta to Exod. xxii., and Baba Metzia 41b. 

The examples given above illustrate the process and cha- 
racter of most of the Gezeroth Shavoth which are quoted in the 
Talmud in the name of the great authorities of the Mishnic per- 
iod. The external analogy (the parity of expressions) from 
which the argumentation proceeds, is there generally of such a 
nature as to imply also an internal or real analogy which jus- 
tifies the conclusion to be drawn from it. 

Usually the two words which form the basis for a Gezera 
Shava are exactly alike, but sometimes even such words are 
used for this purpose which, though different in expression, are 
identical in their meaning. Thus, for instance, a certain ana- 
logy is occasionally formed on the basis of the expressions apl 
jrbn "the priest shall return' (Levit. xiv. 89), and jn^H M31 
•'the priest shall come" (ibid., 44), since the verb "to return" 
is almost identical with the verb u to come" (as the former 
means to come again.) 

~W2 Wn IT n2*V fcOn IT ,]rOn fcCl ]n2n 2W\ 
Siphra to Levit xiv. , and very often quoted in the Talmud. 

V. — THE EXORBITANT GEZERA SHAYA. 

§ 27 

The™ is a peculiar kind of Gezera Shava sometimes resort- 
ed to, especially by Amoraim, which is quite different from 
the rational character of the analogies generally used by the 
Tanaim. Its peculiarity consists in this, that the argument 
from a parity of expressions is also admitted in cases where 
the two laws or passages, compared with each other, have noth- 
ing in common except a single, often very insignificant word 



x The Septuagint already supplied the passage in this way by adding 
to "he shall appear before the judges" the words xai ojtieirai "and he 
shall swear." 



148 4 Hermeneutics of the Talmud. 

which has not the least natural bearing on the conclusion to be 
drawn therefrom. 

It is obvious that arguments from such mere verbal ana- 
logies easily result in what is termed in Logic a fallacy, or 
sophistical conclusion. It must, however, be stated that the 
Amoraim never used such purely verbal analogies for the 
purpose of deducing a new law from Scripture, but merely as 
an attempt to find a Scriptural support for an opinion expressed 
by one of the authorities in the Mishna. 1 

This kind of Gezera Shava is externally characterized by 
being usually introduced by this peculiar formula "■""D-iOnN 
or """D""lDJ "that is derived from," followed by the two 
identical words on which the analogy in question is assumed to 
be based. 

VI. ILLUSTRATIONS OF EXORBITANT USES OF GEZERA SHAVA. 

§ 28. 
a. In Mishna Sanhedrin I. 1, it is stated that criminal 
cases involving corporal punishment (stripes) could be decided 
by a minor court of three judges, but according to the opinion 
of R. Ishmael, such cases required a higher criminal court of 
twenty-three judges. The reason for this divergence of opinion 
was, probably, that this Rabbi regarded the infliction of corpo- 
ral punishment as too serious a matter to be left to the deci- 
sion of a civil court of three; as a criminal case it ought, like 
a case of capital punishment, to be judged by the higher court 
of twenty-three. But the Gemara, commenting on this Mishna, 
wants to know the Scriptural ground on which R. Ishmael 
based his analogy, and in answer to this question the Babylo- 
nian Amora, R. Ashi, thinks that he can find such a basis in 
the word jjbh "the guilty" or criminal, which occurs as well in 
the law referring to corporal punishment (Deut. xxv. 2) as in 
that regarding the execution of capital punishment. (Num. 
xxxv. 31.) 

mrpD '■r'ViD ytrn yvn «t>« 

Talmud Sanhedrin 10. 



Compare Z. Frankel's "Palaestinishe und Alexandrinische Schrift 
forshung," page 20. 



The Analogy of Gezera Shava. 149 

h. Mishna Kiddushin I. 1 lays down the law that one of 
the means to contract marriage was C]DS, that is, the giving of 
a piece of money or its value to the woman, with the express in- 
tention of engaging her for this consideration as his wife. The 
Gemara asks for a Biblical basis of this law, and the following 
answer is given: The Law, in speaking of marriage, uses the 
expression ntfiW WH T\p* "O "if a man take a wife" (Deut. xxii. 
13); but n^h "to take" also means "to acquire" property, x and 
is used elsewhere in connection with money given in considera- 
tion for the acquisition of property ^DD np TT\WT\ CpDWU (Gen. 
xxiii. 13); hence also a wife is acquired by means of money. 

pay nroa nrpp nrvp id: 

Talmud Kiddushin 2a. 

As to illustrations of Gezeroth Shavoth of a still more de- 
cidedly sophistical character, we refer to the following two 
examples in which an argument from analogy is based, in one 
instance, on an identical pronoun (j\b) and in the other on an 
identical adverb (Dtp), occurring in two laws or passages of to- 
tally different nature and contents. 2 

r,2 a^n -ir; nz ra^n nwxnw rroto bj 
wko r\b r\b nen 

Talmud Chagiga, 4a. 



'In the Pentateuch, however, the word np^ nowhere has the mean- 
ing of "to acquire or to buy;" it occurs in this meaning only a few 
times in some of the other books of the Bible (2 Sam. iv. 6 ; Prov. xxxi. 
16, and Nehem x. 32 j; but in the Talmudic idiom it is almost exclusi- 
vely used in this sense. — The formality of contracting marriage by 
means of a piece of money was probably of a late origin, and was per- 
haps influenced by a similar Roman custom— the nuptials by coemptio. 
The probability of such an influence gains some ground if we compare 
the expression of the Mishna W22 ")BBQC|D33 D^Yl nBOBO IVJpJ JIBWn 
with the corresponding expression used by Gajus I., § 110, in speaking 
of the Roman custom : "Feminae olim tribus modis in manum conve- 
niebant : usu, farreo, coemptione." It is moreover evident that the 
civil law of the Mishna, though in doctrines and principles so widely 
different from the Roman law, adopted several legal formalities from 
the latter and modified them according to the leading Jewish principles. 

2 A very extensive use of this kind of Gezera Shava was made 
especially in the Agada (the homiletical explanation of moral and 
historical passages of Scripture), where it was not restricted by any 
rules. There it gave rise to many of those most fanciful interpretations 
and legendary narratives quoted in the Midrash and Talmud. 



150 Hermeneutics of the Talmud. 

n«:nn mos no-r }bm 

Aboda Zara 29b. 

VII. RESTRICTIONS IN THE USE OF GEZERA SHAVA. 

§. 29. 

The exorbitancies which some teachers premitted themselves 
to make use of in the application of the Gezera Shava, served 
only to demonstrate the weakness of the theory of basing ar- 
guments upon an analogy of expressions. It having been 
found that such arguments easily run into vague fallacies, this 
whole theory seems to have been slighted by many. That such 
must have been actually the case is evident from the repeated 
admonitions which several prominent teachers addressed to 
their contemporaries: "Do not look slightingly upon arguments 
from the analogy of Gezera Shava, since very important in- 
junctions of the traditional law can derive their Scriptural au- 
thority in no other way than by means of such an analogy." 1 

But as an arbitrary application of the analogy of Gezera 
Shava could easily lead to misuse, it was found necessary to 
subject it to some restrictions. This was done by the following 
rules : 

1. The identical expression occurring in two different laws 
must at least in ©ne of them be nJDID "empty," that is, seemingly 
superfluous, or pleonastic, and not already engaged for another 
deduction of the traditional interpretation, to enable it to be 
used for an analogy of Gezera Shava. Thus, for instance, in Deut. 
xxiii. 3, the law provides that a bastard "shall not enter into 
the congregation of the Lord, even to the tenth generation." Im- 
mediately after this law follows another, with a similar provis- 
ion, in regard to an Ammonite or Moabite: u Even to the tenth 
generation they shall not enter into the congregation of the 
Lord for ever." The identical expression in both cases are the 
characteristic words, "even to the tenth generation." But in 
the second case this expression seems to bo somewhat superflu- 
ous, or "empty," since the emphatic words "for ever" which 



1; 131 y?V2 i"6p JW ATM ^nn ^K chtyh Talmud Kherithoth, 5<j. This 
admonition is there repeated in the name of four different teachers. 



The Analogy of Gezera Shava. 151 

are added here exclude even the latest generations of an Am- 
monite or Moabite from the congregation. The expression is 
then assumed to have been used here for the purpose of inti- 
mating an analogy of Gezera Shava. As the phrase, "even to 
the tenth generation," is here clearly denned to lneanyw- ever 
or the latest generations {ten being a round number taken to 
signify Perfection and completeness), so the identical expres- 
sion in the former law must be likewise taken in this sense — 
a bastard and his descendants are for eves disqualified from 
entering the community of Israel. 1 

rm rrvu \n*r\ Br»pr6 msno 

Siphre to Deut., section 259; compare also Talmud Jeba- 
moth, 78b. An other example is found in Tal. Chagiga 9a. 

A Gezera Shava in this case is termed "rnS TStD nJSID 
"empty on one side," and is regarded admissible, but may still 
be rejected for certain reasons. Only when the identical ex- 
pression is found to be superfluous in both laws under consi- 
deration, p-nx ^D nl£V2, is the analogy regarded as irrejec- 
table. But if no pleonasm is recognizable in either of the two 
passages of the law, no analogy can be formed between them 
because of an identical expression occuring in each of them. 
Baba Kama 25b; Jebamoth 70a; Nidda 22b; Sabbath 131a. 2 

2. The second restrictive rule is less artificial and answers 
the purpose better than the former. It is this: &>"} p DIN pX 
1DSJJD (Pesachim 66; Nidda 19b) "No one is permitted to 
reason from a Gezera Shava of his own." While the applica- 
tion of the logical inferences of Kal Vechomer could be left to 
the discretion of the teachers of the law, the use of the un- 



^hat is, according to Rabbinical interpretation, they are not per 
mitted to intermarry with Israelites. 

2 The Talmud further makes many nice distinctions in regard to 
this n;21ft, which however, are too intricate and subtle to be treated 
here. Those who take an interest in the details of this subject will 
consult with advantage Dr. H. S. Hirschfeld : Halachische Exegese 
p. 462-467. 



152 Hermeneutics of the Talmud, 

certain conclusions from an analogy ol expression had neces- 
sarily to be restrained. Such an analogy must be sustained by 
the authority of tradition in order to be valid and conclusive, 
or as a post-Talmudic addition to this rule explains: "One must 
have received the analogy from his teacher, and the teacher 
from his teachers, up to the time of the highest legislative 
authority." 

This rule, however, hardly meant to say, as many interpreters 
understand it, that either the special application of a Gezera 
Shava in a certain case must have been handed down, or the 
identical expression on which the analogy is based must have 
been pointed out by tradition. If so, it is difficult to perceive 
how so many controversies could have been raised in the Tal- 
mud in which analogies of Gezera Shava are set forth and 
disputed, or withdrawn and replaced by others. 

The true meaning of that rule seems rather to be that no 
new laws are to be deduced from Scripture b}' means of a 
Gezera Shava, out that such analogies could be only ap- 
plied for the purpose of offering a biblical support to a law 
which already had the sanction of tradition. Such a support 
might be found in one way or another, and hence arose the 
difference of opinion in regard to some analogies. • 

B. HECK E S 11. 

VIII. TERM and theory. 
§ 30. 

There is another kind of analogy, somewhat similar to 
Gezera Shava, which, though not expressly mentioned among 
the thirteen rules of R. Ishmael, was generally adopted and 
very frequently applied in the Talmudic interpretation of the 
law, it is termed Heckesh.. 

The word typ*»n, derived from the verb typn, to compare, 
means originally a comparison, an analogy, in which general 
sense it also occurs; 3 but in the Talmudic terminology it 
usually denotes a particular kind of analogy, based 



JCornpare Frankel : "Ueber palaestinische und Alexandrinisohe 
Schriftforshung p. 16, Note 6 and p. 20. 

2 For instance, Talmud Jerushalmi Pesachim vi. 1. 



The Analogy of Heckesh. 153 

on the close connection of two subjects in one and the same 
passage of the Law. 

The theory of this peculiar analogy is that where two 
subjects are connected in the law by a common predicate, the 
same provisions otherwise made in regard to one of them are 
under certain circumstances applicable also to the other. 

Within certain limits this theory is not inconsistent with 
logical reasoning, since the connection of two subjects by a 
common predicate indicates that they in some respects have a 
relation to each other. In modern rules of legal interpreta- 
tion also is a maxim: "Coupling words together shows that 
they ought to be understood in the same sense."* But in 
their endeavor to provide every traditional law with a Biblical 
support, the rabbis sometimes carried also this theory beyond 
its legitimate limits and beyond the natural scope of the 
written law. 

IX. ILLUSTRATIONS. 

§ 31. 
The following examples will illustrate the different modes 
in which the theory of Heckesh is applied: 

a. According to the traditional law, women are exempted 
from the performance of all periodical rites and religious duties 
incumbent on male Israelites. In regard to prohibitory com- 
mandments, however, no difference is made between man and 
woman. Her obligation in this respect is derived by the analo- 
gy of Heckesh from the words of Scripture (Numbers v. 6). 
"When a man or woman shall commit any sin," etc., in which 
passage women are placed in one category with men in regard 
to a trespass against the law. 

c-isn won bin wyi •o ntrs is ty»s 

Kiddushin 35 a. 

b. Among other rules and regulations concerning civil 
and criminal courts, the traditional law provides that the ses- 
sions of a court must be opened in day time only; and further, 



'Copulatio verborum indicat acceptioneni in eodem sensu. Bacon, 
Max. Reg. 3; Broom, Max. 3d, Lond. edition, 523. 



154 Hermenbutics of the Talmud. 

that blind?iess disables a man from acting as one of the judges. 
The reason for these two provisions is obvious enough. But their 
Biblical support is offered by R. Meir in the following more in- 
genious than natural deduction. He says: The Law, in speak- 
ing of the judicial functions of certain priestly courts, enjoins 
that "by their word shall every controversy and every injury 
be decided" yjj f?3i 31-1 bl PIW (Deuteronomy xxi. 5). 
"Controversy" refers to civil litigations, and "injnry" refers to 
the plague of leprosy (which in Leviticus xiii. 3, is termed y;j 
and was to be investigated by the priest). Both kinds of cases 
being connected in this law, they must be analogous to each 
other also in regard to their investigation. As the blind would 
not be the proper man, and night not the proper time for the 
investigation of a case of leprosy (Leviticus xiii. 6), so ought 
day to be the proper time for the trial of any case of litigation, 
and the blind not be admitted to judge such a case. 

w*ynb can r»pa 

"Ol DW Ejtt f»EflD3 K^l DM D"»JHJ HD 

Sanhederin 34, b. 
&. The traditional permission to cut off the sheaf of the 
first fruits for the purpose of the wave offering on the 16th day 
of Nissan, even if that -day happened to be on a Sabbath, is 
based by R. Ishmael on the following passage (Exodus xxxiv. 
21), n-DfPn T¥p-1 E""li"t2 a In the time of ploughing and reaping 
thou shalt rest on the seventh day." Ploughing is under all 
circumstances an optional (private) act, since it is nowhere 
commanded to be done for a religious purpose. Hence, also 
the prohibition of reaping on a Sabbath day refers only to the 
optional reaping for private purposes, but not where it is to be 
done in fulfillment of a religious duty: 

mtfih Tsp cjK man tmn no 
rram wvo noipn rarp wr 

Mishna Shebiith I. 4. Menachoth 72. 

X. HECKESH FROM PREDICATES. 
§ 32. 
The analogy of Hcckcsh is also made from two predicates 



The Analogy of Heckesh. 155 

belonging lo one subject. In this case, the verbs constituting 
the common predicate are treated as verbal nouns. Such a 
Heckesh is, for instance, applied to prove that a wife may be 
taken in matrimony by means of a written contract of marriage 
which is handed to her. The law (Deuteronomy xxiv. 2), in 
speaking of a case where a divorced woman contracts a second 
marriage, uses the words: rwm riN^l "when she has departed 
out of his house she may become another man's wife." As the 
departing out of his house (divorce) is by means of a written 
document (bill of divorcement), so, also, the becoming a wife 
may be effected by means of a document written for that pur- 
pose. 

maps •'d: mn c]s % nEttc nw n& 

Talmud Kiddushin 5. As to other examples compare B. 
Kamma, 11a„ and Chagiga, ±b. 

XI. HECKESH IRREFUTABLE. 
§ 33. 
Arguments from Heckesh are, in general, regarded as being 
more conclusive than those from Gezera Shava, the latter 
admitting of a refutation, but not the former. 1 But as 
Gezera Shava, so also Heckesh could be applied only for the 
purpose of supporting a traditional law. 



1 B^ttn by prPPD p« Menachoth 826; Baba Kamma 106b. Con- 
cerning the prevalence of one or the other of these two kinds of 
analogy in cases where they seem to be in conflict with each 
other, compare the divergence of opinions in Gittin 41, andZebachini48. 



CHAPTER III. 

THE GENERALIZATION OF SPECIAL LAWS. 
Rule hi, Binyan Ab. 
i. Theory and Term. 
§ 34. 

It is an established principle of modern interpretation of 
laws: "When the law is special, but its reason general, the law 
is to be understood generally" 1 . This principle is also applied 
in the rabbinical legal interpretation, as may be seen from the 
following example: In Deut. xxiv, 6, the law provides "No 
man shall take the mill or the upper millstone as pledge: lor 
he taketh a man's life to pledge." This law is special, prohib- 
iting certain specified utensils, the hand-mill and the mill-stones, 
to be taken as pledges. 

The reason, however, which the law expressly assigns to 
this prohibition is general; by taking away from the poor debtor 
these ufensils, so essential for daily domestic use, you are 
depriving his family of the means of preparing their food. Hence 
the Rabbis feel justified in generalizing this law, so that "Every- 
thing which is used for preparing food is forbidden to be taken 
as pledge." 2 In a similar way the special law: "Thou shalt 
not plow with an ox and an ass together" (Deut. xxii, 10) is 
generalized by the Rabbis so as to equally prohibit the yoking 
together of any two other animals of different species and 
strength. Ox and ass are here mentioned especially as being 
those animals ordinarily employed in agriculture. And not 
only in plowing, but also for any other purpose it is prohibited 
to yoke such different animals together. 3 From the quite ra- 
tional principle just illustrated, developed the Rabbinical rule of 



'Quando lex specialis, ratio autem generalis, generaliter lex est 
intelligenda. 

3 Nin 6?BJ >3 -|BJOK> K>S: ^DIN 12 }WB> "I2T b *6k "wio na-n D*m nS 
^2in. Mishna B. Metzia ix, 13. 

'See Siphre P. 131; compare also Mishna Khilayim viii, 2. 



The Generalization op special Laws, 157 

generalizing special laws. According to the theory of this rule it 
is not even necessary to investigate whether the reason of a 
certain law is general or not, but any special law found in the 
Mosaic legislation is assumed to be applicable to all similar or 
analogous cases. Only where Scripture, in some of those ways 
which are defined by the Rabbis, indicates that the law in ques- 
tion is provided exclusively for the particular case mentioned 
therein, it is not applicable to similar cases. But otherwise, 
the provisions of the law are to be taken in a comprehensive 
and general sense, and the particular case expressly mentioned 
is to be regarded only as an illustrative example for its ap- 
plication. 1 

This theory is termed Binyan Ab (2S J*23), the construc- 
tion of a leading rule i. e. the Generalization of a special law. " 

ii. Method of generalizing a law. 
§ 35. 

In Generalizing a special law so as to make it applicable 
to other cases, the Rabbis apply the following method: 

They try to point out in the special case some character- 
istic peculiarities which taken together are the probable reason 
for the provision made by the law for this case. Any other case 
having the same peculiarities is reguardedas an analogous case, 
subject to the same provision of the law. 

The formula of this method is usually: 

.(in two) ..3d c]k ...w Tnv»D (ij'As nil) no 

X A somewhat similar view is expressed by a modern law writer, 
the celebrated Frenchman Toullier in his Le Droit Civil Francais 
suivant Tordre du Code, liv 3. 1. 1, c. 1. "It is analogy which induces 
us, with reason, to suppose that, following the example of the Cre- 
ator of the Universe, the lawgiver has established general and u- 
niform laws, which it is unnecessarv to repeat in all analogus cases.'' 

2 In the application of this theory sometimes the phrase is used: 
3K nJ3 itf "this (special case) establishes the general rule or law", f . 
ex. Sanhederin 30a; B. Kamma 77b. Sota 2b. In this phrase, the word 
3K meaning father, chief, ruler is taken in the sense of principal or 
general rule (compare the terms rVDK^D ITDtf/ ppttfYDK)' Hence 2K HJ3 
to build or construct a general rule, and 3X pJ3 the construction of a 
general rule, the generalize on of a special law. 



158 Hermeneutics op the Talmud. 

"As A (the case mentioned in the law) being characterized 
by (that and that certain pecularity) is subject here to a cer- 
tain provision, so any case similar to it (by having the same 
pecularities), is subject to the same provision. 

Where it is to be shown why the generalized law does not 
apply to a certain not quite analogous case, the formula is: 

"As A (having those certain pecularities) is here subject 
to that provision, so any other case (similar to it by having 
the same peculiarities). The case of B however is excepted 
from that provision, because of its not having the same 
peculiarities." 

Illustrations. 
§ 36. 

a. In Leviticus chapter xi and Deut. chap. xiv. the law 
treats of clean and unclean animal food. Concerning the quad 
rupeds, fishes and flying insects, general rules are given 
pointing out certain criteria by which to distinguish between 
the clean and the unclean. For the distinction between clean and 
unclean fowls, however, no general rule is given, but there is 
merely a list of nineteen or twenty specified birds which 
are unclean. To have a general rule also for this kind 
of animals was the more necessary as many of the spe- 
cified fowls can not easily be identified. The Rabbis therefore 
tried to find such a rule by generalizing the eagle which 
stands at the head of the specified list of unclean fowls. The 
eagle, they say, has four peculiarities: 1. it has not a "pro- 
longed toe"; 2. it has no crop; 3. the inner coat of its giz- 
zard cannot easily be peeled off from the fleshy part: 4. it 
"strikes" with its claws the prey by eating it. Hence any 
fowl resembling it in these peculiarities, is to be regarded as 
unclean. 1 

b. In Deut. ch xix, the law contains some particulars 
supplementary to a former law concerning the cities of refuge 



biNi D-vm nSpJ unp-iip fw P Q N mw idvn \b r«B> invo nsw no 1 

Talmud Chullin 61a. NDB 13 NVVD ^"2 *)N NOB 



The Generalization of special Laws. 159 

which were designed to serve partly as a protection, partly 
as a punishment and atonement for him who unintentionally 
had committed a homicide. In this connection the special 
provision is made, that when a man goes into a forest with his 
neighbor to hew wood, and the iron of the axe slips out from 
the handle and accidentally kills the neighbor, the slayer shall 
flee into one of those cities. 

This special provision is, of course, generalized by the Rab- 
bis, so as to be applicable to analogous cases, e. g. if one in 
breaking down a wall kills a man accidentally by one of its 
falling stones. If, however, such an accident happened in 
private premises, where the man who was killed had no 
right to enter, he who unintentionally caused his death is en- 
tirely acquitted, without having to flee to the city of refuge; 
for u as the forest mentioned in the law is a public place which 
the slayer and the slain man equally had a right to enter, so 
that law applies only to accidents occurring on places which 
both of them were permitted to enter, but not in private 
premises, where the man who was killed was neither permitted 
nor expected to be. 1 ' 1 

Remark. Where it is not intended to raise a special provision to a 
general law applicable to all similar cases, but merely to draw from 
it an analogy for one single similar case, there the method is termed 
I^VD liD (abbrev. E"D), from the pharase by which such an analogy is 
usually introduced; . . . \y£0 HD "as we find concerning ... so here"; 
e. g. Yebamoth 7b: nN JIBWD D"D Nedarim 4b: D'VUE b"0- 

Incorrectly the J2"D is sometimes termed 3tf pj3, as in Menachoth 
76a; y'm TP3TO K"2; see Rashi 's commentary on that passage. 

in. Generalization of two special provisions. 

§ 37. 

In the instances of Binyan Ab mentioned above, the 
general law is drawn merely from one special provision. Such 
generalization is qualified as ins 3irDD 2S f}2 a a general 
law drawn from one passage (or provision)." But sometimes 
it is formed by a combination of two special provisions found 
either in one and the same passage or in two different passages 
of Scripture. In this case it is termed Cairo "WD K"3 "& 



* Mishna Maccoth II, 3. P)N DE>S D3pb P'TC^l pV:b niKH njTfl no 

022b h nwsn p«sp nun bv2 -ran ror db6 d:d^ pnrfn pv& nitn fe 



160 Hermeneuttcs of the Talmud. 

general rule drawn from two provisions" 1 It makes no es- 
sential difference whether the two provisions are found in the 
same or in different passages, as the same method is applied 
in either case. 

The method of generalizing two special provisions, so as 
to make of them one general law, is indicated by the formula 
always used for this purpose. It is: 

"Behold, this case is not like the other, and the other not 
like this; the common peculiarity is...." That is to say,first a dif- 
ference between the two special provisions is stated, and then 
again those points are set forth which are common to both 
of them, and which form their characteristic peculiarity. Any 
other case having the same peculiarity is then subject to the 
sa/me law. 

Remark. The reason why a difference of the two special provisions 
has first to be demonstrated before generalizing them, is explained in 
the following way: 

It is a Talmudic rule of interpretation that intfD D^SOn D*31]"D ^5? 
jHD^D^K "wherever two provisions of the law are found in Scripture 
which are so indentical that one of them is seemingly superfluous, as 
it might as well have been derived from the other by way of an ana- 
logy, then no further deduction from either of them can be admitted" 
(Kiddushin 24a and elsewhere). In making a Binyan Ab by a combina- 
tion of two special provsions it is therefore necessary first to show that 
they ace not so identical as to be regarded as*iriS3 D^NSn D^IJID ^L M ,but 
that they really do differ in some points. 



1 This definition is according to the opinion of R. Abraham b. 
David (Rabed) in his exposition of the hermeneutic rules. Some com- 
mentators, however, call the generalization of one special provision of 
a law : I^VJO HD ; the generalization of two provisions if found in one 
passage: Tnx DirDE N"X and if' found in two different passages of 
Scripture: D^IJID ^B>» K"3. 



The Generalization of Special Laws. 161 

Illustration of generalizing two special provisions. 

§38. 

In Exodus XXI, 26 and 27, the law provides, that "if a 
man smite the eye of his servant and destroy it, he shall let him 
go free for his eye's sake. And if he smite out his servant's 
toothy he shall let him go free for his tooth's sake." 

Here two provisions are made, one concerning the eye and 
one concerning the tooth of the servant. Though different in 
their nature, eye and tooth have that in common that they are 
essential parts of the human body and the loss of them cannot 
be restored. Hence the Rabbis draw from these two provisions 
the general law that the mutilation of any member of the ser- 
vant's body in consequence of brutal treatment on the part of the 
master, causes the immediate manumission of that slave. 1 

iv. Generalizing several special provisions. 
§ 39. 

There are some instances where a Binyan Ab is formed by 
a combination of three or even four different special provisions. 
The method of operation in such cases is just the same as in the 
case of generalizing two provisions. 

An example of a combination of four different provisions 
for the purpose of forming one general rule is furnished in the 
first Mishna of Baba Kamma. There, reference is made to 
four principal damages provided for in the law: 1) the damage 
caused by a goring beast (Exod. XXI, 28. 35. 36.); 2) the dam- 
age caused by an uncovered pit (Exod. XXI, 33. 34.) 3) the 
damage caused by depasturing foreign fields (Exod. xxii. 4) and 
4) damage caused by unguarded fire (ibid, verse 5.). 

Of these four provisions the general law is formed that a 
man is responsible and has to make restitution for any damage 



\rw jnap ms?n -nn jem nro ;<y nn «bi py 'iru \wn *in *6 l 
*viTr6 piwr pNB> Dnax ny.-n ba fjx -ror6 fya* p«B> ona« ^an 

pin p iirSy xvv 

Mechilta Mishpatim P. ix: cf. also Talmud Kidd. 24a. 



162 Hermeneutics of the Talmud. 

caused by his neglect to guard that property which is under 
his care and liable to do damage. 1 

V. Recapitulation. 

§40. 

Briefly recapitulating this whole chapter on Generaliza 
tion,we shall find that according to the Talmudical view every 
provision of the Mosaic law is, as far as possible, to be taken 
as a general law, applicable to all analogous cases. A plain 
application of a special provision to one analogous case is termed 
irXD HD. The generalization of special provisions, so as to 
make them applicable to all analogous cases is termed sk pja 
the construction of a general rule. If such a general rule is 
derived merely from one special provision, it is termed z$ p^ 
"ins 31TDD. A general rule formed by a combination of two 
(or more) special provisions which, though different, have some 
characteristic points in common, is termed D^airO *WD 3K p2. 
These common characteristics are termed mtPn Tin. 



vrw nn nr a6i "iwn '"irq nvio nn wbi njn»n *hna Dvm nn ah l 
inn nria pvrffl "iW pnw nn nr vh) Q"n nn n p«B> srxn nro D^n nn ;na 
l^y jnv»Bn p^rnb p-nsy fnap nipn ivn prnto n,W DTi paw 

Examples of Binyan Ab formed of three provisions are found in 
Sanhedrin 66a; Maccoth 4b; Chullin 65b. 



CHAPTER IV. 

THE GENERAL AND THE PARTICULAR. 

Introductory. 
§41. 

In order to understand the different hermeneutic rules un- 
der this heading, it is necessary to have a clear conception of 
the meaning of the two talmudical terms ft"i3 and bbl- 

bbz means the General, that which comprehends a class of 
objects; that which is applicable to a number of things agree- 
ing in a certain point in common. 

tSIS means the Particular or the Special, that which sin- 
gles out an individual from among a number or class. 

Hence, any general term or any noun with the adjective 
^O "all'' "whatsoever", is regarded as bb'Z] while any term de- 
noting only a single object is taken as t3"iB. 

The law usually speaks either in general or in particular 
terms, as: "He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be 
put to death" (Ex. XXI, 12); "Thou shalt not eat any abominable 
thing" (Deut. XIV, 3). In these two cases thr terms are gener- 
al. But in the law: "Thou shalt not seethe the kid in its mother s 
milk" (Ex. XXIII, 19), the terms are particular. 1 

It is obvious that where the law speaks in general terms 
it intends to refer to everything included in those terms. 
Where, however, it uses particular terms, the whole tenor of 
the law will decide whether it refers exclusively to the single 
objects mentioned and enumerated or also to others of a simi- 
lar nature. 

But it sometimes occurs that the law uses both kinds of 
terms together, so that either 1) the general is succeeded by 



^he terms ^3 and BID are applied by the Rabbis even to verbs. A 
verb denoting an indefinite act, as to do, to take, are regarded as TO, 
while a verb denoting a special kind of act, as to bake, is a 13ns; ©• 8> 
Kiddushin 2 lb. fernnp^; Menachoth 55b: BiB-naKn tih, bpDTIBPyn &6« 



164 Hermeneutics of the Talmud. 

particulars, BiBI ^3, or 2) the particulars are succeeded by a 
general, bbll tt"lB,or3) one general term preceding and another 
sncceeding the particulars, hbll E1B1 ^5. In each of these three 
cases the contents of either the general or that of the particu- 
lars are modified in some way. These modifications are defined 
by the following three rules. 

Rule IV. General and Particular. 
§42. 

/« //;<? ra.w <?/ General and Particular, the general includes 
nothing but the particular. 

That is, when a general term is followed by an enumer- 
ation of particulars, the law is assumed to refer exclusively to 
the enumerated particulars. The particulars are then not re- 
garded as a mere illustrating example of the preceding general, 
but an indication that the contents of the latter are restricted 
solely to that of the particulars. 1 

The following examples will illustrate the application of 
this rule: 

a. In Levit I, 2. The law defines the offerings to be 
brought on the altar by the following words: "you shall bring 
your offering of the beast (nDH2n JO), of the herd or of the 
flock." The general term is here "the beast ("£"2) which 
otherwise includes any kind of quadrupeds, both wild and tame 
(cf. Deut. XIV, 4. 5); but the special terms u herd and flock" limit 
the offering to these domesticated animals. The law is then to be 
construed in the following way: of the beast, viz. only of the herd 
and of the flock you shall bring your offering. 2 



1 Somewhat analogous to this Rabbinical rule of interpretation is 
the following rule of construction of modern laws: "Where a general 
enactment is followed by a special enactment on the same subject, the 
latter enactment overrides and controls the earlier one". See Broom's 
Legal Maxims p. 650. 

2 .TPl vh\ l,b WCK |«yi "Ip3- Tal. Zebachim 34a. 



The General and the Particular. 165 

b. In Deut. XXII, 11 the law reads: "Thou shalt not 
wear a mingled stuff (TJtajJS?), wool and linen together". Here 
the general term Tjftj;^, meaning a mixture of different sorts, 
is followed by the particulars "wool and linen together;" hence 
the Rabbis regard the prohibition of wearing a garment of ming- 
led stuff to be restricted to a mixture of wool and linen. 1 

c. In Levit. XVIII, 6 sq. the law on prohibited marriages 
begins with the general terms. "None of you shall approach 
to any that is near of kin to him — ". According to this general 
interdiction the intermarriage with any degree of relationship 
would be prohibited. But as the general is followed by a spe- 
cification of prohibited degrees, the interdiction is to be re- 
stricted to these specified degrees. 2 

Rule V. Particulars and General. 
§ 43. 

.ten p^riDi ronsn by cpoio bb^n wy* Wsi tans 

In the case of Partieulars and General, the general term 
adds to the contents of the particulars, and we include everything {be- 
longing to this general). 

That is to say, where particular terms are followed by a 
general term, it is assumed that the law refers to anything in- 
cluded in the general, 3 the particulars being regarded merely 
as illustrative examples of that general. 



1 See Mishna Khilayim X, 1, and the commentary of Obadiah 
Bertinoro. 

■ Siphra in loco: fe-'til nfi5>3 IKS? bl i?K B*K £»tf 

p-ia— 'uvpK nnjn tik nny 

It is true, the rabbinical law adds some extensions to the biblical list 
of prohibited degrees, but these extensions are not regarded as biblical, 
but as nVJEP 'secondary prohibitions' made by the authority of the 
Sopherim. See Mielziner 'The Jewish Law of Marriage and Divorce', 
p. 37. 

3 In a somewhat similar case, the modern rules of construction 
take just the opposite view, as may be seen from the following quota- 
t on in Broom's Legal Maxims p. C50 : 'It is said to be a good rule of 



166 Hermexeutics of the Talmud. 

This rule is applied in the following law in Exodus XXI 1. 9: 
•'If a man delivereth to his neighbor an ass, or an ox, or a 
sheep, or any beast te> keep, and it die, etc." 

Here the enumerated particular terms ass, ox, sheep are 
followed by the general term u any beast". Hence this law re- 
fers to any kind of animal which is delivered to be guarded. 1 

Rule VI.. General, Particular and General. 

§ 44. 

A case of one general preceding and another following the 
particular can, in some respects, be regarded as an combina- 
tion of the two former cases, namely of General and Particular 
and of Particular and General, and the rule for this combina- 
tion is, consequently, a kind of amalgamation of the two rules 
given above concerning these two cases. While in the case of 
General and Particular (Rule IV) the general includes nothing 
but the strict contents of the particular, and in the case of Par- 
ticular and General (Rule V) the contents of the particular are 
extended to the whole comprehension of the general, it is held 
that a particular between two general terms is to be extended 
only as far as to include that which is similar to the contents of 
this particular, or as the rule is expressed in the talmudic phra- 
seology: 

construction that "where anAct of Parliament begins with words which 
describe things or persons of an inferior degree and concludes with 
general words, the general words shall not be extended to any thing 
or person of a higher degree", that is to say, where a particular class 
[of persons or things] is spoken of, and general words follow, the 
class first mentioned is to be taken as the most comprehensive, and the 
general words treated as referring to matters ejusdem generis with 
such class, the effect of general words when they follow particular 
words being thus restricted'. 

• Mechilta on this passage : 

rw is Tion ix tip *6n »b p« 
ripra ban b"n ? pj» n»na hi ikb? 

1^33 ban msn bv epDW fen biv 



The General and the Particular. 167 

In a case of General, Particular and General, do include only 
that which resembles the particular. 

An example illustrating the application of this rule is fur- 
nished in Ex. XXII, 8, where the law is laid down that in all 
cases when a person has been found guilty of having embezzl- 
ed property, that person shall pay the double amount of the em- 
bezzlement. This law is introduced by the words: "For any mat- 
ter of trespass (General), for ox; for ass, for sheep, for raiment 
(Particulars), for anything lost (General)... he shall pay double 
to his neighbor." 

Applying the rule of General, Particular and General, the 
Rabbinical interpretation of this law is to the etfect that the 
restitution of the twofold value is to be made only for such em 
bezzled property which resembles the particular (the specified 
objects: ox, ass, sheep, raiment) in this that it is ??iovable pro- 
perty, and that it is an object of intrinsic value. Hence the fine 
of double payment for the embezzled property does not apply 
where it concerns real estate which is not movable, and neither 
where it concerns bills or notes which have no intrinsic but 
only a representative value. 1 

Remark 1. In regard to the limitation of "that which res- 
embles the particulars" (ft"i£n pJJO), the Talmud expresses two 
opinions which differ from each other slightly. 

According to one opinion it is assumed that in a connection 
of General, Particular and General NpH HDD K^O ''the first 
general is prevailing and deciding," so that such a connection 
is to be treated mainly in accordance with the rule for tDISI hbl 
viz. that the general comprises nothing but the strict contents 
of the particular. These contents are, however, in our case 
modified by the succeeding general, so that it now comprises 

1 Baba Kamma 62 b: M>o — y^S "Ql bo bv 

tns> — 7\nb& bin ne> bv m»n bv iw iv 

bboi -im — rrroK bo bv 

])nv ibui irotson i:i smso tnsn no 

jiDtD ibw bttbaon im bz sjk 

^bobon jrKP rnypnp in^ 

p»» JBU p« pbtti>B»P B"yKB> nHtttP 1NV S 
Other examples are furnished in Nazir 35 b ; Shebuoth 4 b ; 43 a. 



168 HERMENEUTICS OF THE TALMUD. 

anything which resembles the particular, at least, in three 

points (p"TX rrarttfa). 

But the other opinion assumes that in a connection of Ge- 
neral, Particular and General tfpH KVC *6^3 "the last gener- 
al is prevailing and deciding 1 '. Hence, such a connection is to 
be treated rather in accordance with the rule for hb^ t31S, sb 
that the contents of the particular are extended to everything 
comprised in the general. This extension is, however, in our 
case modified by the first general in as tar as it excludes that 
which resembles the particular only in one point (ins "TX)> 
while anything resembling it in more than one point (^2 
PT¥) is included. See Talni. Erubin 28a; compare also Rashi 
on Chullin 65b sub voce n"D1. 

Remark 2. Two general terms either preceded or followed by a 
particular are, according to some authorithies, also treated as a case 
of General, Particular and General: 

rob n? pioDn 0^3 w kvio nnKP &\pn bz 
fei d-idt M>33 pni jwa dis ban 

Chullin 66 b ; B. Kamma 64 b. 
Remark 3. The rule of General and Particular applies only when 
both are found in one and the same passage of the law, but not 
when in different passages : 

Dien Won pnm xb n?ri nr pprrnon tnai ?!d 

B. Kamma 85 a ; Menachoth f!5 b. 



CHAPTER V. 

MODIFICATIONS OF THE RULES OF GENERAL 
AND PARTICULAR. 

The Rules VII-XI contain five different modifications of 
the preceding rules concerning the General and Particular. 

First Modification. Rule VII. 

§ 45 
hbzh *px kiw 12121 tns^> -px Kintt ^2 

There is a general that requires the Particular, and a Particu- 
lar that requires the General. 

That is to say, the preceding rules of General and Particu- 
lar do not apply to cases where either the general needs the 
supplement of the particular, or where the particular necessari- 
ly requires the supplement of the general in order to express 
a full and clear meaning. For, an ambiguous general term 
cannot be treated as a general; neither can an indefinite special 
term be regarded as a particular. 

Thus, in Leviticus XVII, 13 the law enjoins that he who 
taketh in hunting any beast or fowl that may be eaten, shall 
pour out the blood thereof 12^2 IHDDl u and cover it with dusf\ 

In this passage the word IHD^I might have been taken 
as a general expression, since there are various ways of cover- 
ing a thing; ISJJS again is a particular term, and according to 
the rule of Klal u-Phrat (Rule IV) the interpretation of this 
law would be, that the blood must be covered with dust and 
with nothing else. 

But the general expression nD3 is ambiguous, as it admits 
of different meanings; it means as well to cover (i. e. to overlay, 
to envelop), as also to hide (to conceal, to withdraw from the 
sight). Without the addition of iBJD we might suppose that 
the law only intended to enjoin that such blood oe put out of 
sight or concealed in a closed vessel. Hence the expression 



170 Hermeneutics of the Talmud. 

1HD31 is U( d General that requires the Particular", to express 
that the meaning is to overlay it with something. 

Consequently the rule of K'lal u-Phrat cannot be applied 
here, and the term -\£yz is not necessarily to be taken in its 
strictest sense, but may be extended so as to include anything 
resembling the dust. ' 

The same passage can also serve to illustrate the second 
part of our rule. The special term -iS$?3 without the general 
expression *iriD31 would have been quite meaningless, as no 
verb would be there indicating what to do with the dust. 
Hence it is u a Particular that requires the supplement of the 
General". Another, somewhat intricate, example in Talmud 
Bechoroth 19 a.' 

Second Modification. Rule VIII. 
§46. 

n»^ bbsn p awi ^32 rrw 131 bs 
.wp ibs Wan by idW xb» w ivsy by tdW s^ 

When a single case, though already included in a general law, 
is expressly mentioned, then the provision connected with it, applies 
to all other cases included in that general law. 

This rule is illustrated by the two following cases: 
a. The practice of witchcraft was according to the gener- 
al law in Ex. XXII, 17 (rvnn $b nSBOB) a capital crime. 
The nature of the capital punishment is, however, not denned 
in this general law. But in regard to a certain kind of witch- 
craft, namely iJiyTn 31K (having a familiar spirit and being a 
wizard) the law specifies the punishment as that of stoning 
(Lev. XX, 27). Hence this punishment applies to the practice 
of any kind of witchcraft*. 



! Tal. Chullin 88b: ma IBy ,SSd inD31 NO*N 

? xb twin** *TD p« "»BV 
tnsb T"ivn bbs mm own 

.d"idi Wm inw pn ptn 

! Talm. Sanhederin 67b: VH D'CBOD W>33 ^JTW 3W 

-jS "l»Al D^^K t^pr6 ? ^Wf nD ^ 

.n^pD3 *|BO» r\S n^pD3 WV1 31 K HO 



Modifications. l'Tl 

b. Deut. XXII 1-3, the law treats of the duty to restore 
found property to its owner. After having enjoined this duty 
concerning animals found going astray, it is added: "And so 
shalt thou do with his garment) and so shalt thou do with every 
lost thing of thy brother's, which he hath lost, and thou hast 
found... "In interpreting this law the Rabbis say :Why isgarment 
expressly mentioned, though contained in the general term of 
•'every lost thing"? It is to indicate of what nature the found 
things must be concerning which it is your duty to advertise 
in order to restore them to their owner. Every garment had 
certainly an owner and, besides, it has some marks by which 
he could identify it. So the duty of advertising iound things 
refers only to such property which obviously had an owner who 
will reclaim it and which has certain marks by which he might 
be able to identify it. 1 

Third Modification. Rule IX. 

§ £l. 

irjp Kinff im jjttfc pyt^ twi bbsn nw -m bs 

• •VDnn 2 ? xbibprb MX* 

Wherever a single case, though already included in a general 
law, is expressly mentioned with a provision similar to the general, 
such a case is mentioned for the purpose of alleviating, but not 
of aggravating. 

An example is furnished in Ex.XXXY,3: "you shall kindle 
no fire throughout your habitations on the Sabbath day". 
Now kindling fire being regarded as a labor, is included in the 
general prohibition of doing any labor on the Sabbath day. 
Since here expressly mentioned, it is for the purpose of alle- 
viating this special case by exempting it from the rigor of the 
general law in regard to labor on the Sabbath day, so that he 



'Mishna B. Metzia II, 5: r6x ^3 50D3 HHM nr6»B>n SJK 

DTDin nb m d^d nn sw rnnvb rbow no 
xnarh yri roam ib w\ d^d u ww -inn i?n c;n 

Other examples are furnished in Tal. Yehamoth 7a, and Kheri 
thoth 2b. 



172 Hermeneutics of the Talmud. 

who kindles fire on that day, transgresses only a prohibitory 
law, but is not subject to that severe punishment which the 
preceding verse appoints for other kinds of labor. 1 

Fourth Modification. Rule X. 

§48. 

W3jD *6p nn« ]jna py^ an Was rnnff nz-r ta 

Wherever a single case, though included in a general law, is 
separately mentioned with a provision differing from that contained 
in the general, such a case is mentioned for the purpose of alleviat- 
ing as well as of aggravating. 

This rule may be illustrated by the passage in Ex. XXI, 
28-32. There the law provides that if a man or woman has 
been killed by a beast that had not been duly guarded by the 
proprietor, though its savage nature was known to him, that 
proprietor, besides losing the mischievous animal, had to 
pay (to the bereaved family) such an indemnification as may 
be laid upon him by the court After this general provision 
the law adds that if a male or female slave was killed by such 
a vicious animal, its proprietor has to pay to the master of 
the slave an indemnification of thirty shekels. Now the caso 
of male or female slave, though included in the preceding gen- 
eral law of man and woman, is here separately mentioned 
with a provision different from the general in this, that the 
amount of the indemnification is fixed. This separate provision 
is for the purpose of alleviating as well as aggravating; alle- 
viating in the case of the actual value of the killed slave being 



'Talm. Sabbath 70a, and Sanhederin 35b: nW wbb mjian. 

There is however another opinion represented by R. Nathan who, 
interpreting this special prohibition of "kindling lire" according to 
the second modification (Rule VIII), holds : flNV' \hrh miDil, this 
special prohibition of one kind of labor is an indication that each of 
several labors done on a Sabbath-day is to be regarded as a separ- 
ate desecration of that day, for which the transgrassor, under 
circumstances, had to bring a separate sin - offering. Talni. ibid. 



Modifications. 173 

more, and aggravating in the case of its being less than thirty 
shekels. 

See Mechilta, Mishpatim. Parsha XI and Mishna B. Kam- 
ma IV, 5. 

Fifth Modification. Rule XI. 
§49. 

Ehnn 1212 \nb ^ten jo Km Was mw 121 to 
ttrrvsn iW^ avon irww ly ibbsb mno nn« *tf 

Wherever a single case, though included in a gefieral law, is ex- 
cepted from it by an entirely new provision, such a case is not to e 
brought again under the general law, unless this be expressly indic- 
ated in the Scripture. 

An illustrating example is furnished in Lev. XIV, 11-16. 
One of the two sacrifices which the healed leper had to bring 
for his purification was a trespass-offering (C^N). But while 
the blood of trespass-offerings in general was sprinkled only 
on the altar, the offering of the healed leper made an excep- 
tion in this, that some of its blood was applied to the person 
of him that was to be cleansed (verse 25). This peculiar way 
of sprinkling is BHnn 121 the entirely new (extraordinary) 
provision by which this sacrifice is excepted from the general 
law of trespass-offerings. Hence it would have to be excepted 
also from the other ordinances and rites regarding trespass-offer- 
ings, had not the Scripture expressly brought it again under 
the general law by adding (verse 13 Kin D^SH r.KBrD) that 
this offering was otherwise to be sacrificed as a trespass-offer- 
ino- in the usual way. Talm. Zebachim 49a. 



CHAPTER VI 

RULES XII AND XIII. 

The Explanation from the Context. Rule XII. 
§ 50. 

IfilDD TD^m mil 1WJJP IDta 121 
v4 7£'/?r^ (or passage) is to be explai?ied from its connection or 
from what follows. 

That is to say, the true meaning or of a law of a clause in a 
law is sometimes to be interpreted by considering the whole 
context in which it stands or by looking to that which follows. 1 

Examples: 

a. Explaining an ambiguous word from the context: 
The word nDtWl occurs in Levit. XI, 18, among the names 

of itnclean fowls, and again in verse 30 among the creeping 
things on earth. Hence, it is concluded, that the law does not 
refer to the same animal, but in the former place to a certain 
kind of bird (namely according to LXX the swan, and accord- 
ing to the Talmud, to the bat), and in the other place to 
the mole.* 

b. Explaining the meaning of a passage from the context. 
In Ex. XVI, 29, we read: " Abide you every man in his 

place, let no man go out of his place on the seventh day." If 
taken out of its connection, this passage would contain an in- 
junction that no Israelite shall leave his place on the Sabbath 
day. But if we look to the context, we find that it refers to 



'Compare the following rule of modern jurisprudence with refer- 
ence to the mode of construing deeds and written instruments : Ex 
antecedentibus et conseqaentibus fit optima interpret otto. "A passage 
will be best interpreted by reference to that wich precedes and fol- 
lows it". (Broom, Legal Maxims 577). Compare also the maxim: Nos- 
citur a sociis "The meaning of a clause may be ascertained by ref- 
erence to the meaning of expressions associated with it" (ibi. 588). 

2 Chullin 63a: "\y\ i^MD 1E>n 13T ^IDIVSK' niK3 nOCOri 



The Explanation from the Context. 175 

the manna gatherers, prohibiting them to go out on the Sab- 
bath day with tbe intention to seek manna. 1 

c. Interpreting a clause in a law by a clause which follows: 
In Deut. XIX, 5 relating to the cities of refuge for the 
manslayer, the law says: "Lest the avenger of the blood pur- 
sue the slayer and overtake him and slay him ; and he is not 
worthy of death etc." This last clause is somewhat ambiguous, 
whether referring to the blood avenger or to the manslayer. 
The latter interpretation is supported by the clause following 
it: "in as much as he hated him not in time past."* 

Reconciliation of Conflicting Passages. Rule XIII. 

§ 51. 

nwn yrp^ wbw- mron ks^ iv 

Two passages contradicting each other are, if possible, to be re- 
conciled by a third one. 3 

As an instance of contradictory passages we may refer to 
Ex. XIII, 6 and Deut. XYI, 8. While the former passage en- 
joins: u Seven days shalt thou eat unleavened bread," the lat- 
ter passage says: "Six days thou shalt eat unleavened bread." 

In a plain way, the contradiction between these two pas- 

^his plain interpretation according to the context is also adopt- 
ed by Rashi in his commentary on this passage. Talmudical 
interpretation, however, disregarded in this case the context, and 
deduced from the words of this passage tbe general prohibition that 
no Israelite shall, on a Sabbath-day, go farther than 2000 cubits 
from the place of his abode (r\2W Dinn "the Sabbath way"); for 
that was the distance of the holy tabernacle from the remotest 
^art of the Israelitish camp in the desert. See Talm. Erubin 51a. 

2 Maccoth 10b: -Qi» airDPI n¥TO ,7110 DDE>D pK "6l 

? Din isNiaa n!?x wk in rram -i»w nm 
.-mo ninan nvm ioik nn 

3 Compare the following rule of interpretation established in 
modern jurisprudence (Potter, Dwarris treatise on statutes p. 144) : 
" Where there is a discrepancy or disagreement between two statutes, 
such interpretation should be given that both may, if possible, stand 
together." 



176 Hermeneutics of the Talmud. 

sages may be removed by taking the latter passage in the 
sense that six days unleavened bread shall be eaten, but that 
on the seventh, besides this observance, a holy convocation 
shall be held; or, that unleavened bread shall be eaten during 
six days besides the first, the celebration of which had been 
treated more fully in the preceding verses. 

In a more artificial way, the rabbinical interpretation 
tries to reconcile the contradictory passages according to our 
Rule by referring to a third passage, namely Lev. XXIII, J 4 
where the law enjoins that no use whatsoever was allowed to 
be made of the new corn until the offering of an Omer of the 
first produce of the barley harvest had taken place on the 
morning after the first day of Pesach. Hence unleavened 
bread prepared of the new corn was to be eaten only during 
the six remaining days of that festival. Referring to this cir- 
cumstance, the passage in Deut. XVI, 8 speaks of six days, 
while the passage in Ex XIII, 6 refers to the unleavened bread 
prepared of the produce of the former year's harvest which 
might be eaten during seven days. 1 

Remark. Some of the Rabbis however, apply in their interpret- 
ation of Deut. XVI, 8 the Rule VIII and arrive at the conclusion 
that,just as, according to this passage, the eating of unleavened bread 
on the seventh day was optional, so it was also optional on the first 
six days, so that it was not obligatory to eat just that which is prop- 
erly called unleavened bread (Matza), provided that nothing is eaten 
which is leavened (Chametz). Only on the first eve of this festival 
the eating ot such unleavened bread was regarded as obligatory, as the 
law concerning the paschal-lamb on the eve expressly enjoins (Ex. 
XII, 8) "with unleavened bread and with bitter herbs they shall eat it. '"-' 



Mechilta, Bo, VIII (compare also Talmud Menachoth 66a): 
Tesachim 120a: nifcn DTP nBWP *|K nitTl 'XP2B> HE 



CHAPTER VII. 

ADDITIONAL RULES. 
A. Juxtaposition. 

§ 52. 

A peculiar kind of analogy which has some similarity to 
Heckesh (above p. 152) is that called pSIDD contiguous passages, 
or the analogy made from the juxtaposition of two laws in Script- 
ure. 

The theory of this rule is that the meaning of a law is 
sometimes explained from another law or passage which is 
placed near by, either preceding or following it. 1 

The following examples will illustrate this rule: 

1. The word Mamzer (usually translated a bastard) in the 
law Deut. XXIII, 3: " A Mamzer shall not enter the congrega- 
tion of the Lord" denotes, according to rabbinical interpreta- 
tion, one born of incest or adultery. This interpretation is 
based on the circumstance that a preceding law (ib. verse 1.) 
interdicts an incestuous connection. 2 

2. The law prohibits every labor on Sabbath, without 
specifying the occupations included in that interdiction, thus 
leaving a wide scope to individual opinion on the nature of 
Sabbatical labor. Tradition, in order to prevent arbitrariness 
in so important a point, tried to fill out this void by a detailed 
definition of the nature of work, and minutely specified the 
labors which are allowed and which are forbidden on Sabbath. 
The Talmud distinguishes thirty nine chief labors JTDK^D JTQtf, 
comprising all those occupations which were necessary for the 



1 This rule was probably introduced by R. Akiba, see Siphre, 
Numbers 181: '131 n31DDB> HKHB ^3 1D1K y""l 
9 Yebamoth 49a. 



V3K n^K DN K>"K PIP' fi6 
"!?»» KW *6 Tl'b TED! 



178 Hermeneutics of the Talmud. 

construction of the holy tabernacle. This is based on the cir- 
cumstance that Scripture repeatedly (Exod. XXXI 1-17; 
XXXV, 1 sq.) brought the Sabbath law in juxtaposition with 
the description of the tabernacle. 1 

Remark. The theory of | S D1DD which Ben Azai, one of R. Akiba's 
disciples, even applied in the construction of criminal laws, was not 
generally adopted. R. Jehuda ben Ilai, another disciple of R. Akiba, 
is especially mentioned as having been opposed to its general application. 
He strongly objected to a deduction based by the former on that the- 
ory in the case of a certain capital crime, remarking with astonishment: 
"How, shall we inflict the punishment of stoning upon a criminal be- 
cause two laws are incidentally in juxtaposition?" (Yebamoth 4a; San- 
hedrin 67b.). 

He admitted the analogy from juxtaposition only in cer- 
tain cases, especially in regard to laws found in the book of Deutemomy 
where the laws are evidently arranged according to a certain plan, 
while in regard to the other books of the Pentateuch it is held : ptf 
i"l"0rD "iniNDI DIplD "there is no certain order for the sequence of the 
laws" (Pesachim 6b), hence no analogy must there be based on the jux- 
taposition of two laws (Sanhedrin ibid.). 

§ 53. 

Another kind of ]*OiDD consists in the method of sepa- 
rating the final part of a clause or sentence and connecting it 
with the beginning of the following clause or sentence, and in 
this way artificially forming a new sentence, the sense of which 
is to support a certain traditional law. 

This peculiar method may be illustrated by the following 
examples. 

1. It was a traditional rule of law, based on common 
sense, that a judge was unfit to sit in court when known to 
nourish inimical feelings either against the defendant or against 
one of his fellow judges. In the absence of an express passage 



> Talm. Sabbath 49b: pBflDH THMV "MM maK^O DUN; see Rashi's 
Commentary on this passage. Other examples of this kind of analogy 
are found in Pesachim 96a; Yebamoth 4a. 



Additional Rules. 179 

in the Mosaic law bearing on this rule, the Rabbis construed 
an artificial support in the following way. In Numbers XXXV, 

23, in the law about unintentional murder, it is said 

"whereas he was not his enemy, and did not seek his harm". 
These words plainly refer to the slayer and the slain man, but 
by connecting them with the beginning of the following sen 
tence (verse 24): u the congregation (i. e. the court) shall 
judge...", the new sentence is construed: Being no enemies and 
not seeking his harm, they shall judge as a court. 1 

2. In Lev. XXIII, 22 we read:... '-and the gleaning of 
thy harvest thou shalt not gather ; unto the poor and the stranger 
shalt thou leave them. " By closely connecting the end of the 
first clause with the beginning of the next clause, the sentence 
is formed : "thou shalt not gather unto the poor', intimating that 
the owner of the field has no right to gather the gleaning in 
behalf of a certain poor and thereby depriving the other poor 
of their claim to that gleaning warranted them by the laws. 2 

B. Restrictive Rules in the Application of Analogy. 

§ 54 

Byway of a plain analogy, particular provisions of the 
law concerning a certain case are in the Talmud often trans- 
ferred to another case. This method is termed irXD no ; 
(compare abos r e p. 159). The phrases used in this process are 
either.... p ]T?h* or ...,.]£ j^nDlj we derive, learn (this pro- 
vision) from (that other case of...). 

The use of analogy for such purpose presupposes consisten- 
cy in the law, so that its provisions in one case were intended 
to apply also to an another similar case. But though the two 
cases from the comparison of which an analogy is drawn need 
not to be alike in all respects, still they must, at least, be- 
long to the same sphere of the law. The provisions con 



'rai iBsci iron &?p2D vb\ ib :na *6 aom 

(ivr xb wiBn) r*b "in 

nnaa pn paw pkb? t"kt prjw n"n *jpb yv* 

Talm. Sanhedrin 29a: compare Rashi's commentary. 

4 Tai. Gittin i2a: ^n n« y"Dn *6 nvh Dpbn »b 



180 Hermeneutics of the Talmud. 

nected with the one case cannot be applied to another case 
which is totally different in its legal nature. Hence the follow- 
ing restrictive rules in the application of analogy: 
1. jM^ 8*7 RJIBDD KTIDN 

In a ritual case we do not apply an analogy from a civil 
case, and vice versa. Berachoth 19a; Baba Metzia 20a; Kid- 
dushin 3b. 

In a case concerning pecuniary restitution we do not apply 
an analogy from a case concerning fine. Kethuboth 46b; Kid- 
dushin 3b. 

3. p«nM *6 nwpp pVin 

In a case concerning profane things we do not apply an 
analogy from laws concerning sanctified things. Pesachim 45a; 
Shebuoth 26b; Nazir 36b. 

4. pwrai Kb vmm 

From an extraordinary, exceptional case we make no ana- 
logy, i Pesachim 44b; Moed Katon 7b; Chullin 98b, 

C. Limited or Unlimited Effect of an Analogy. 
§55. 

When provisions of one law (A) are to be applied to an- 
other law (B) by virtue of a traditional analogy (the construc- 
tional Gezera Shava, compare above § 24), the question arises 
whether those laws are to be treated alike in every respect, so 
that all particulars found in A are applicable to B or whether 
the consequences of such an analogy are to be restricted to 
the main provision only. Concerning this question two differ- 
ent opinions are expressed. 

1 A similar rule is also laid down in modern law interpretation; 
compare Fr. Lieber, Legal and Political Hermeneutics, p. 276: "An ex- 
ceptional case can of itself sustain no analogy, since the instance from 
which we reason, the analogon, must always be one which implies the 
rule". 



Additional Rules. 181 

One opinion, represented by R. Meir, holds: nJDl HJD ]Yl 
''deduce from it, and again from it", that is to say, any further 
provision connected with A may be transferred to B. 

But the other opinion is: tfnnSS H J3W HJD jVT "deduce 
from it, and (as for the rest) leave it in its place", that is to 
say, after having transferred the main provision of A to B, we 
are to let B retain its own character and the provisions ex- 
pressly connected with it. 

The difference between these two opinions maybe illustrat- 
ed by the following example. 

In Deut. XXIII, 3, the law provides that a Mamzer, that 
is, one born of incest, "shall not enter the congregation of the 
Lord, even to the tenth generation" A similar provision has an- 
other law concerning an Ammonite and a Moabite: u Even to 
the tenth generation they shall not enter into the congregation 
of the Lord, for ever.' 1 '' By a Gezera Shava the conclusion is 
made that also in the former law concerning Mamzer the phrase 
"even to the tenth generation" is to be understood "for ever". 
(See above p. 150). 

But while the term Mamzer implies the female as well as 
the male, the masculin form of the words 'OKIDI 'VttBJJ is taken 
by tradition strictly, referring to males only, but not to females 

(rr»siDp nVi "oiay). 

According to the opinion of HJDl HJE JVT, a female Mamzer, 
after the tenth generation, might be admitted to enter the con- 
gregation ; her case being then, in all respects, analogous to 
that of a female Amonite who is exempted from the prohibi- 
tion. 

But according to the opinion of frnns % 3 *ptKl nlfl JH, the 
two laws are analogous only in respect to the meaning of the 
phrase "even to the tenth generation", while the expression 
Mamzer always retains its comprehensive meaning, including 
females as well as males. See Yebamoth 78b. Another ex- 
ample Shebuoth 31a. 



182 Hermeneutics of the Talmud. 

D. Refutation and Reinstatement of Hermeneutic 
Arguments. 

§56. 

The generalization of a Special Law (above Chapter III) 
may be refuted by the objection that a particular circumstance 
is connected with that special law which renders it unfit to be 
generalized or to be applicable to other cases. 

The phrase used in such a refutation is the same as that 
which is used in refuting the premise of an inference of Kal 
Vechomer (see above p. 137), namely: ptf itfbsh tV2 

"Why is that special provision made for the case A? Be- 
cause that certain peculiarity is connected with this case" .... 

After such a refutation, the attempt is usually made to de- 
fend the Binyan Ab by a reference to case B having the same 
provision, though not connected with that peculiarity. If then 
also the generalization of case B is objected to, on account of 
an other peculiarity connected with its provision, this objection 
is again removed by a reference to case A in which that pecu- 
liarity is not found. The common provision of A and B is then 
generalized according to the usual method of "WE 2N ]*23 
D*3iro. (See .above p. 160). The procedure of this combined 
generalization is usually introduced by the following phrase: 

...pnw m'»n "ran pit "hi-d ht •nn xb pin nrrn 

"The conclusion returns (that is, the former argument is to 
be reinstated), for A is not like B, and vice versa, but the 

common point of both is " Examples: Maccoth 2b ; Sanhed 

rin 66a. 

Remark. The same dialectic procedure and the same 
phrases are also applied where a refuted inference of Kal Ve- 
chomer is to be reinstated by a combination of two similar cas- 
es, as in Berachoth 35a ; Kiddushin 5 b; B. Metzia 4a, and 
often. 

E. The Theory of Extension and Limitation. 
§ 57. 

The term ^2*i means extension) tfity^E limitation. The idea 



Additional Rules. 183 

connected with each of these two terms when applied separate- 
ly, was explained in the introductory chapter § 6 and § 1. 
We have here to consider their meaning when applied con- 
jointly tbiyDI ^2*1 to signify a theory in contradistinction to 
that of BiSI bbl (chapter IY). 

In as much as a general term (^te) denotes an indefinite 
number of individuals having something in common, it may also 
be regarded as *>12"1, an extension of the meaning; and in as 
much as a particular, singular term (tfi'ifi) restricts the mean- 
ing to definite individuals, it may be regarded as ttljPD, a lim- 
itation. 

That which in the theory ofR. Ishmael is called tDISSI bhs r 
is according to the theory of R. Eliezer and R. Akiba regard- 
ed as bijpdi "nan- 

There is the following difference between these two the- 
ories. 

a) In a combination of ta^SI ^D, the particular is regard- 
ed as the explanation of the preceding general, so as to narrow 
down its comprehension to the strict contents of the particular, 
excluding even that which is similar to this (no N^>K ^te'2 pK 
ti*l£2tt>, see above § 42). 

According to the other theory, the fcljpD merely limits the 
extension of the preceding VD1,so as to include everything sim- 
ilar, and exclude that only which is not similar to it. 

ntiH ys*vm b^di .ten nan ,tDijpDi '•inn 

b) In a combination of ^>tel EIS the general following a 
particular includes everything falling under the general (comp. 
Rule Y. § 43). But according to the other theory, the 112H fol- 
lowing the QljPD includes that only which is similar to that 

c) In a combination of^tel EHSI ^te we include only that 
which resembles the particular (comp. Rule VI.. § 44). 

But, according to the other theory, the rule for ta^oi ^21 
^211 is, that the vqp includes everything, even that which is 
not similar to the QijPD, the effect of the latter being, however, 
to exclude merely one single thing which has the least simil 



184 Hermeneutics of the Talmud. 

arity to it. To define this one thing to be excluded, is entire- 
ly left to the judgment of the expounding Rabbis. 1 

ins in xbx tajr»D *6i fan n:i viarvi tDijPDi nri 

The theory of BiyDl ^21, being not as clear and exact as 
that of taisi ^3, is rejected by most of the Tanaim, and ad- 
mitted only in some special cases. 2 

The difference between these two theories is illustrated by 
the following example. 

In Levit. V, 21-23, the law provides that if an embezzler 
without having been convicted before a court, but prompted 
by his conscience, wants to expiate the sin of his injury to 
some person in respect to property, then he has to restore the 
fraudulently acquired property, with the addition of one fifth 
of its value, and besides bring a trespass-offering. The law in- 
troduces the case by the words: 

"If a person commits a misdeed, and lies to his neighbor 
(General) concerning a trust or a deposit (Particulars), etc. etc. 
or whatever it may be about which he has sworn falsely (General), 
then he shall restore etc". 

According to the theory of *fyy\ tDIST ^3, these expres- 
sions are to be construed in a way that the mulct of one fifth 
of the original amount is required for such embezzled objects 
only which are movables, and have an intrinsic value, the former 
excluding real estate, and the latter excluding 'bills or notes. 

But according to the theory of tDljTDT ^2% the law refers 
to any kind of embezzled property, including real estate, exclud- 
ing, however, bills or notes which have merely a representative 
value. 

The argumentation according to these two theories is expressed in 
the following way: 



'See Rashi on Talm. Kiddushin 21b, and on Shebuoth 4b. 
2 Seo B. Kamma 04b; Shebuoth 5a; Chullin 67a. 



Additional Rules. 185 

B A 

raijw ""iir trnn nTjr^s 'n rtnsi ^a '•am pan 

nan — irvoya btoi W>a — irvoya £>nai 

tDyo — v noiana ik pnpsa o-ib — t noi^na ik nnpaa 

nam nm — yats* ns?K i>ao in hbyi nm — ya^ -ib>k bao in 

ban nan nam two nan man pya vbx p nnx '« &ai onai & 

*^o ba s an s an *ko poo isiai baboon nan bhibo oisn no 

nnp2> oy»o ,eiro ^01 poo law boboon ba *jk 

pboboo pap mypnp in^ 
poo |bu pap nnop ik^ 
Talm. B. Kamma 117b; Shebuoth 31b. Other examples :Succah 
50b; Kiddushin 21b; Shebuoth 2Ga. 

F. "Mikra" or "Masora"? 



Although our vowel-signs of the Biblical text were uutyet 
introduced at the Talmudic period, still the correct pronun- 
ciation according to the vowels was fixed by oral tradition. 

The reading of the text according to the established pro- 
nunciation was called $*\pft (reading). The proper spelling 
of the words of the sacred text as fixed by tradition, letters 
without vowels, is termed Masora (HT1DO or "TIDD). 

The peculiar spelling of many words sometimes admits a 
meaning somewhat different from that which js expressed by 
the established pronunciation or our present vocalization. 
The question then arises whether in such a case the law is to 
be intrepreted according to the vowel reading or rather accord- 
ing to the letters with which the word is spelled in the Masora. 

In this respect two opposite opinions are expressed in the 
Talmud. One holds: Knpob Dtf £" "The source of law is in 
the reading" i. e. the reading of a word according to its estab- 
lished vocalization is essential to decide its meaning. The 
other opinion is: jVYlDDb DN Bh "the source is in the Masorc," 
that is, the spelling of the word as fixed by the Masora is more 
material in defining its meaning. 



186 Hermeneutics of the Talmud. 

Example: Speaking of the cities of refuge to which he who 
unintentionally killed a fellow-man was to flee, the law illustrates 
the case of such an unintentional homicide by the following 
words: As when a man goeth into the the woods with his 
neighbor to hew wood, and his hand fetcheth a stroke with the 
axe to cut down the tree, J>yn jD bv\2fi b^T\ and the iron slip 
pelh from the wood, and findeth his neighbor, that he die, etc." 
(Deutr. XIX, 5.) 

According to the opinion of KlpD^ Qtf , this passage refers 
only to the case where the killing happened by the iron of the 
axe slipping from the helve. But according to the opinion of 
rPIDD^ Dtf the letters of the word bw\ admit that word to be 
read bw\ in the Piel form, so as to give the sense "and the iron 
splints a piece from the tree", hence this passage refers only 
to a case where the killing happened by a piece of wood which 
the axe cut from the tree. 

jmp Sfctti #«npD^ ns % «r« '•■dd pnm 

Maccoth 7b; other examples Pesachim 86a, and Sanhedrin 4a. 
In this, as in most of other cases, the opinion oftflpD^ Qtf 
prevailed. The opposite opinion was accepted only where it 
served to support a traditional interpretation of a law; for in- 
stance, that the expression of D^IEr. JTIS3 (Levit XXIII, 40) 
which the Masora spells JIM (without i) refers only to one 
branch of the palm tree (Talm. Succah 32a). 

CLOSING REMARK. 

Concluding this exposition of the principal rules of Talmu- 
dical Hermeneutics, we must remind the student that this sys- 
tem of artificial interpretation was mainly calculated to offer 
the means of ingrafting the tradition on the stem of Scripture, 
or harmonizing the oral with the written law. 

Modern scientific exegesis, having no other object than to 
determine the exact and natural sense of each passage in Scrip- 
ture, must resort to hermeneutic rules fitted to that purpose, 
and can derive but little benefit from that artificial system. 



Closing Remark. 187 

Thus already the great Jewish Bible commentators in the Mid- 
dle Ages, Ibn Ezra, Kimchi, and others who are justly re- 
garded as the fathers of that thoroughly sound and scientific 
system of exegesis that prevails in modern times, remained in 
their interpretation of the Bible entirely independent of the 
hermeneutic rules of Hillel, R. Ishmael and R. Akiba. Never- 
theless, this system deserves our attention, since it forms a very 
essential part of the groundwork on which the mental structure 
of the Talmud is reared. It must be known even in its details, 
if the Talmudic discussions, which often turn on some nice 
point of the rules of that system, are to be thoroughly under- 
stood. 



PART III. 



TALMUDICAL TERMINOLOGY AND METHODOLOGY. 



TALMUDICAL TERMINOLOGY AND METHODOLOGY. 

Prefatory. 

Like any other branch of science and literature, the Talmud 
has its peculiar system of technical terms and phrases adapted 
to its peculiar methods of investigation and demonstration. 
To familiarize the student with these methods and with the 
terms and phrases most frequently used in the Talmud is the ob- 
ject of the following chapters. As the Mishna is the text on 
which the Gemara comments, we begin with the explanation 
of some of the terms in reference to certain features in the 
structure of the Mishna, We shall then proceed to the various 
modes and terms used by the Gemara in explaining and discus- 
sing the Mishna. This will be followed by an exposition of the 
ways in which the Talmud generally discusses the reports and 
opinions of the Amor aim. Finally, the methods and processes 
of Talmudical argumentation and debates as well as the terms 
and stereotyped phrases connected therewith, will be set forth. 



A. THE MISHNA. 

CHAPTER I. 

Terms and Phrases regarding the Structure of a Mishna 
Paragraph. 

d n d 

§1. 

iltc Mishna very often simply lays down the law without 
mentioning its author or any conflict of opinions that existed 
in regard to it. Such a Paragraph of the Mishna is termed 
DJ1D, an anonymous and undisputed Mishna. Examples: Bera- 
chothl, 4; III. 1-3. 

Such anonymous and undisputed Mishna paragraphs are 
generally regarded as authoritative. They are mostly of a ve- 
ry ancient origin, having been incorporated into the work of R. 
Jehuda Hanasi from older Halacha collections made by former 
teachers, especially that of R. Meir. TtfD ,m \ jVVJfiD CJHD 
Sanhedrin 86a. 

np^no 
§2. 

Often also the Mishna reports a conflict of opinions in regard 
to a certain law. Such a conflict is termed npi^no a division 
or difference of opinion. 

The conflicting opinions are set forth in different ways: 

a. After having laid down the anonymous rule of law, the 
dissenting opinion of a certain teacher is added by: nDltf s y\bS) ,m \, 
Rabbi A says.... In such cases, the anonymous author of the 
first opinion is termed in the Gemara Rpp tfjn the former tea- 
cher. Example: Berachoth IY, 1. 

Remark. As the anonymous opinion represents that of the teachers 
in general, the Gemara sometimes calls it also D^DDn S "U1 the words 
(the collective opinion) of the sages; f. i. Sanhedrin 31a. 

b. A rule of law is laid down with the addition tm \ i*qi 



192 Terminology and Methodology. 

'J< "Ol^S these are the words of Rabbi A, and then the dissent- 
ing opinion is introduced by : 1D1S '2 "0"6s '11 but Rabbi B 
says. . . ; or the question of law is propounded, and then the dis- 
senting opinions concerning it are introduced by lew 'tf *tfbs '"> 
"IDIN '2 "UI^S "Yl. Examples: Berachoth II, 1 and 3. 

Such a difference of opinion in which the opposite views 
are represented by single teachers is teimed in the Gemara 
TT1 TIT Hpl^riD a difference between individuals. 

c. The opinion of a single teacher concerning a question 
of law having been set forth, the collective opinion of other 
contemporary teachers differing therefrom is introduced by: 
D'HD'IK D^DUm but the (other) sages say.... Example : Bera- 
choth VI, 4. 

Such a conflict of opinions between an individual and a 
majority of other teachers is termed in the Gemara npl^nD 
C2T TIT a conflict between an individual and the majority. Gene- 
rally, the opinion of the majority prevails. This rule is phrased: 
^3*0 nlbn D^TI TIT where an individual and the majority 
differ from each other, the opinion of the majority is Halacha 
(the accepted law). Berachoth 9a. 

d. The conflicting opinions are represented by different 
schools, especially those ofShamaiand Hillel. 

Examples: Berachoth I, 1; VIII, 1. 5. 7. 8. 
Remark. In a conflict between those two schools the opinion of 
the School of Hillel generally prevails, nwn rWK fl"3 D1pD3 V"2 Be- 
rachoth 36b. 

§ 3. 

Where a Mishna paragraph contains, provisions for two 
or more cases, the former case is signified by KB"i (the case at 
the beginning), and the following or last case by tf^D (the case 
at the end). The case between these two is termed tfnyXD 
the middle case= 

Example for a Mishna paragraph with two cases: B. Metzia 
I, 3; for one with three cases: B. Metzia I, 4. See also Gema- 
ra Kiddushin 63a; Kerithoth lib; Chullin 94b. 

In a paragraph divided into two main parts, A and B, 
each containing two cases, a and b, the case of A Ms termed 
WTI KB^D, and that of B, a ks*DT KtP"H- 



Terms and Phrases regarding the Mishna. 193 

Example: Shebuoth VI, 7. Compare Talmud Shebuoth 
43b; B. Metzia 34b. 

Remark. A part of a Mishna paragraph referring to a separate 
case or proposition is also termed X32 (gate, section, clause); hence 
the terms Kt^-n N22 the clause of the first proposition, KQ^DT 502 
the clause of the subsequent proposition. Sabbath 3a; Yebamoth 18b # 

d y id 

§ 4. 

The Mishna, in general, simply lays down the rule of law 
without stating its reason. At times, however, the reason is 
added. The reason of a law is termed DJ?tD« It is either based 
a) on a biblical passage (Sip) and its interpretation, and is 
then usually introduced by id WW ; or b) on common sense 
(N12D) ; or c) on a general principle (^D). 

•Examples: a) Berachoth IX, 5; B. Metzia II, 7.10. b) B. 
Metzia I, 7; II, 11. c) B. Kamma III, 10.11. 

Remark. The Gemara generally invertigates the reason of the 
law where it is not stated in the Mishna. 

§ 5. 
Also the different opinions of the teachers concerning a point 
of the law^are generally set forth in the Mishna without the reason 
of the difference being added. Occasionally, however, not only 
the reason of one or both of the contradictory opinions is stated, 
but even a shorter or longer controversy is recorded in which 
the teachers argue in opposition to each other on some questions 
of law. Such a controversy is termad in the Gemara Kna^S. 
The elaborate argumentation pro and con is also termed NfcyD 
jr.Dl or in Aramaic frontal tibpW (literally, a taking and giving 
of arguments, i. e., a discussion). Examples of controversies in 
the Mishna: Berachoth I, 3; Pesachim VI, 2; Taanith I,- 1; B. 
Kamma II, 5. 

n ff y d 

§ 6. 
The Mishna sometimes adds to its rule of law or to its 



194 Terminology and Methodology. 

opinions of the contesting teachers the report of a certain case 
in which a celebrated anthority gave a decision either 1) in 
accordance with or 2) in contradiction to the rule just laid 
down or the opinion just expressed. Such a report is usually 
introduced by the word nt^yD it is a reported fact that. . . . , 
it once occured that. .. 

Examples ad 1: JBerachoth I, 1; Bechoroth IV, 4; ad 2: B. 
Metzia VIII, 8; Gittin I, 5. 

§ 1. 

The word bbl, often occurring the Mishna, signifies a gener- 
al rule, a guiding principle of a law. Such a general rule either 
precedes or follows the details of a law. 

Where it precedes the details, it is usually introduced by 
the words TiDN bbli they (i. e. the former teachers) established 
the following rule concerning.... 

Examples: Pea I, 4; Shebiith VII, 1. 2; Maaseroth I, 1. 
Sabbath VII, 1. 

Where the general law follows the details, it is introduced 
by bbSn HT this is the general rule 

Examples: Berachoth VI, 7 ; Pesachim III, 1 : B. Metzia 

IV, 1. 

Remark. The Geniara usually investigates the necessity of this ge- 
neral rule by asking: ^XD "1J"I&6 what is this to add? i. e; which new 
cases is this general rule to imply besides those explicitly stated in the 
details of the law? • 

pn ,ten M 

§ s. 

Paragraphs of the Mishna containing a generalizing or 
comprehensive provision are introduced by bl or ^on "all", 
"every", " whatever". Mostly some exceptions from such a 
generalizing provision are added by the word pn "except".. 

Examples: Chagiga I, 1; Kiddushin I, 6. 7. 9; Gittin II, 
5.; Chullin 1,1. 

Remark. The Gemara finds that such comprehensive provisions 
are not always exact, as they often admit of exceptions besides those 
expressly stated in the Mishti i. Erubin 27a; Kiddushin 34a. 



Terms and Phrases regarding the Mishna. 195 

§ 9- 

Without laying down a general rule, the Mishna sometimes 
states the exact number of cases to which a certain law refers 
and then specifies those cases more fully, f. i. "there are four 
main kinds of damages to property, namely...." B. Kamma I, 
1; or: "Marriage maybe contracted in three ways, namely..." 
Kiddushin I, 1. Such a stated number is termed fcWtfB. 

Remark. The Gemara finds that such a number is intended to 
limit the law exactly to those cases mentioned in the Mishna, so as to 
exclude certain other cases, and the question is generally made : 
^D ""EiyD^ JO"3D what cases are excluded by this limiting number? 

*on it Abx 
§ io. 

Another limitation of the Mishna occurs, where certain 
cases are enumerated by the introductory words i^tf "these 
are..." or fcon IT "this is..." 

Examples: Peal, 1; Pesachim II, 5; Yebamoth III, 3. 5. 

Remark. Also where these limiting words are used in the Mishna, 
the Gemara usually asks: ^£ ^BiyD? what cases are excluded by this 
limitation? 

§ 11. 

Still another limitation admitting of no other exceptions 
t lan those expressly mentioned, is tound, where the Mishna points 
out the only difference that in certain legal respects exists 
between two things, by the limiting phrase: ...K^K....jv* ptf 
"there is no difference bet ween... and.... except in regard..." 

Examples: Megilla I, 4-11. 

§12. 
Where the Mishna enumerates different cases to which a 



196 Terminology and Methodology. 

certain law applies without fixing their number and without using 
any of those limiting terms mentioned above, the enumerated 
cases do not always exclude other cases to which the same law 
applies. The Gemara uses in this case the phrase: T^l KJH 
"the Mishna teaches concerning certain cases, and leaves 
others to be added". 

Examples: Taanith 14a; B. Kamrna 10a; Maccoth 21b. 

IT tjtt IT Xb 
§13. 

Where in enumerating certain cases of a law a subsequent 
case is more unexpected than the preceding, the Gemara uses 
the phrase ijrip IT CIS IT $b "the Mishna teaches not only that, 
but even this," that is, the Mishna intended to arrange the 
cases in a climax, starting from that which is plain, and adding 
that which is more unexpected. 

Examples : B. Metzia III, 4 and 5, See Talm. B. Metzia 
38a. 

Remark. The climax in the arrangement of several cases is also ex- 
pressed by the Talmudical phrase:.. l^SSK *6« fcOyTE *6 ,1»Np fi^DO *6 
the author of the Mishna states here a case of "not only"; not only as 
to.. .but even .., i. e., the Mishna adds here to -that which is unquestion- 
able (plain and obvious enough) that which is more unexpected. 

Examples: Betza 37a; B. Kamrna 54b; Kiddushin 78b. 

it nD"6 -pa pn it 

§14. 

On the other hand, the Mishna sometimes arranges the 
cases of a law in an anticlimax, so that the subsequent case is 
self-evident from the preceding. This is expressed in the Ge- 
mara by the phrase: IT -iDl 2 ? "pnx JW IT * 'that, and it is unnec- 
essary to say this" i. e. after having stated the law in the 
former case, it applies the more to the following case. 

Example: Rosh Hashana IV, 8; see Talm. R. Hashana 
32b, 33a. 



Terms and Phrases regarding the Misiina. 197 

§ 15. 

Of these two antithetical terms the Gemara makes frequent 
use in the interpretation of the Mishna, especially in questions 
of the ritual law. pi^nro^ means, literally, as for the beginning, 
at the outset, beforehand, previously. The term denotes the 
question of law concerning an act to be done, whether it may 
properly be done in that certain manner or not. 

135TH (contraction of izy *W) means if he has done. In 
contradistinction to the former, this term denotes the question 
of law concerning an act already done, whether it is valid and 
acceptable or not. 

The phrases in connection with these two terms are: 

1. ThX]TOh I^BN or '•W n^nri^ even directly, i. e. the ex- 
pression of the Mishna indicates a direct permission to do the 
act under consideration, so that it may be done unhesitatingly. 

Example: Tal. Chullin 2a. 

2. $h Th^TTdl pS "T3JP*Q tf done, yes, but directly not i. e. 
only if it has already been done, it is acceptable and legiti- 
mate, but directly permissible it is not. 

Example: Chullin 13b; 15b. 

3. ^Dl TSty T2JTH ,$h rh^TWCh directly not, but if done it is 
right, i. e. it ought not to be done, but if already done, it is 
acceptable and valid 1 . 

Examples: Mishna Berachoth II, 3. Terumoth I, 6;Talm. 
Berachoth 15a b. 

4. $h *C3 "T3jn even if done, it is not accepted as valid. 
Examples: Berachoth 15a; Megilla 19b. 



1 Compare the phrase in the civil law: Fieri non debet, sed fac- 
tum valet. 



B. THE GEMARA EXPLAINING AND DISCUSSING 
THE MISHNA. 

CHAPTER II. 

Modes of Treating an Anonymous Mishna Paragraph. 

§16. 

The Gemara uses a great variety of modes in commenting 
the Mishna and discussing its contents. Generally, the com- 
ments are introduced by a query which is intended to call at- 
tention to the point that requires elucidation. This method of 
introducing a statement or explanation by queries is to some ex- 
tent already found in the Mishna itself, as TID'WD from what 
time on may we read....? Berachoth I, 1. 2; Taanith I, lj.yrtpa 
how are benedictions to be recited..? Berachoth VI, 1;VII, 
3;...nD21....nC2 with what... and with what...? Sabbath II, 1; 
IV, 1 ; VI, 1;... jiijD whence is it derived...?.. inWI». 1"T\S % 
which are... and which are...? B. Kamma II, 4; B. Metzia V, 1, 
and many other similar interrogative phrases. But in the 
Gemara this method is more commonly applied. 

The following is an outline of the different modes and 
phrases mostly used in the Gemara at the outset of its com- 
mentation and discussion on the Mishna. 

1. Explaining Words and Phrases of the Mishna. 

§ IT. 

Such explanations are mostly introduced by the question: 
....'WD what is...? or, what means....? 

Examples: Berachoth 59a; Pesachim 2a; Kiddushin 29a. 

In answer to this query, the explanation is generally given 
in the name of a certain Amora. Sometimes, two teachers dif- 
fer in the answer; f. ex. Berachoth 29a; Pesachim 2a. Where 
the schools of Bab}ionia and Palestine differ in the interpreta- 
tion, that difference is usually expressed by ... !Di:nn iC" 



Modes of treating an anonymous Mishna. 199 

"nOK ^T\T\here (in Babylon) they explain..., but there (in Pales- 
tine) they say...; or...iDU"in K3n here\h\\$ explain,.. IDS 'fl '11, 
but a certain (Palestinian) Rabbi says....; f.ex. R. Hashana 
30b, Sanhedrin 25a; B. Metzia 20a. Sometimes, however, 
JOn refers to Sura in opposition to other Babylonian schools; 
f. ex. Pesachim 42b; B. Bathra 61a. 

Remark. Where the question >XD is followed by... ND^R if to 
say.. ? is it to say. ...? an anticipated explanation is to be rejected as 
wrong; f. ex. Berachoth 9b; Kiddushin 29a. 

2. Asking for the Meaning or Construction of a Whole 

Sentence or of a Statement in the Mishna 

§ 18. 

a. *iONp "WD what does he (the author of this Mishna) in- 
tend to say here? 

The answer to this question is generally introduced by: 
*V2#p "OH thus he says.... Example : Sabbath 41a; Taanith 27a. 

b. JJDBPD 'WD what does he let us hear? 
Examples: Sabbath 84b; Sanhedrin 46b. 

Remark. Different is the meaning of the question yiot^o ,, XD,when 
followed by...."T, in which case it is to be translated by: What proves 
that....? f.ex. R. Hashana 21b; 22b. 

3. Asking for the Object of a Seemingly Indifferent or 

Superfluous Statement. 

§ 19. 

a. KrD^?n ^D 2 ? for what practical purpose is this (state- 
ment) ? 

Examples: R. Hashana 2a; Yebamoth 39a; Kethuboth 82a. 

b. ]b JJOtPDp '•KD (abbr. V'DD "WD) What does he intend 
to let us hear? What does he want to teach us, here? 

The answer to the latter question is mostly introduced by 
...V'Dp Nil This he intends to teach us, that... 

Examples: Pesachim 89a; Sebachim 85b; Meilah 21a. 

c. fcWD^ 'WD What is this to say? Why teach this? 



200 Terminology and Methodology. 

Example: Nazir 13a. 

4. Investigating the Particular Circumstances of a 
Case referred to in the Mishna. 
§20. 

a. jM^DJJ *M22 Of what case, of what circumstances do 
we treat here? 

Examples: Betza 2a; B. Metzia 12b; Gittin 37b. 

b. "»D"r \3Tl (abbr. Ti"i) How shall we imagine this case? 

Examples: Megilla 18a; Gittin 78a; B. Kamma 28b. 

Both of these two interrogative phrases are mostly follow- 
ed either by . . . KD^tf if to say. . ; is it to say. . . ? anticipating an 

answer which is rejected at once; or by a dilemma... *»tf *tf, 

if. .J. and if.. A presenting two anticipated alternatives to either 
of which the law under consideration cannot well refer. 

The answer to such questions is introduced either by s 3" 
I^DDy 'WDIS Here we treat of the case...., or by... fcCHX $b, 
no (i. e. not as you anticipated, but) necessarily.... (we have to 
imagine the case under the circumstances that...), or by.... 
D^ljrt, however, still (i. e. notwithstanding your objection) / 
say. ... 

This last phrase is especially used when one of the altern- 
atives is defended against the objection made to it. 

5. Investigating the Biblical Source of a Law Laid down 
in the Mishna. 

§21. 

The question introducing such an investigation is either: 

]b KJD, contr. J^iD (abbr. b"lfc) Whence do we have this? 

Example: Kidd. 14b; 22b and very often. 

Or iV»D ^H MD, contr. ^D ijnjD (abbr. *yn») Whence 
are these words (laws)? 

Examples: Berachoth 30b; 35a a. v. o. 

Both of these questions correspond to the Mishnic pja, 
whence is it derived? 



Modes of treating an anonymous Mishna. 201 

Correctly the question b"lD is applied where the source of 
only one single point of the law is to be investigated, while 
D'TID is used where several points or provisions are under 
consideration. But this distinction is not always strictly re- 
garded. 

In answer to this question either an Amora is quoted who 
points to the source, by the phrase: S"1D "IDS"! for Scripture 
says...., or reference is made to a Baraitha in which the law 
in question is artificially derived from a biblical passage. This 
reference is introduced by: "f'm for the Rabbis have taught.. 

Remark 1. Instead of answering the question of p2D, the Gema- 
ra sometimes repeats the same question with astonishment: !?pJD, as 
if to say, How can you ask such a question, since the sourca of the 
law under consideration is obvious enough from a plain biblical pas- 
sage? The original question is then set forth in a modified form by the 
phrase: pnDtfp 'an pM We mean to say (ask) thus:...;f. ex. Megilla 2a; 
Sanhedrin 68b; Sebachim 89a. 

Remark 2. In answering the question of j5?JD, the Amoraim often 
differ, one deriving the law from this, and another from another pas- 
sage. After having investigated the merits of their different deriva- 
tions, the Gemara sometimes adds another biblical basis given by a 
Tana in a Baraitha. In this case, the phrase is used : rh WV'D JOni 
NDnO but a Tana derives it from this passage... 

Example: Betza 15b; Chagiga 9a; Kiddushin 4b; see Rashi o the 
first mentioned passage. 

6. Investigating the Reason or the Underlying Principle 

of a Law. 

§22. 

Such an investigation is generally introduced by the query 
KDVD ''KD (abbr. tD"D) What is the reason? 

Examples: Berachoth 33a; R. Hashana 32b; Megilla 24a; 
B. Metzia 38 a. 

This query is especially made in regard to such anonymous 
Mishna paragraphs where the law contained therein is evi- 
dently not based on scriptural grounds, but merely on a rabbin- 



202 Terminology and Methodology. 

ical institution or principle. But in regard to a Mishna con- 
taining a difference of opinion, the question:... 'YTKDJJta "WD 
"What is the reason of the dissenting Rabbi A?" is often also 
answered by a reference to a biblical passage; f. ex. Berachoth 
15a. 

Remark 1. Exceptionally the question B''D is found in Moed 
Katon 19a in the sense of *kb pyb "in what respect?" See Rashi on 
that passage. 

Remark 2. Where the reason of one of two cases or one of two 
opinions contained in a Mishna paragraph is clear enough, but not the 
other, the query is usually set forth in the following phrase: 

?K»yB 'no ....*6x ....dwd K»bea 

It is all right (in the one case)...., there it is on account of...., but 
in the case of... what is there the reason? 

Examples: Berachoth 33b; 52b; Yebamoth 4 lb. 

Remark 3. Sometimes, both questions D"D and JD"njD are made. 
In this case the former asks for the underlying principle, and the lat- 
ter for the biblical basis of that principle; for ex. Sabbath 24b. The 
reversed order is found in Betza 15b; see Rashi on that passage. 

7. Investigating the General Basis of the Particulars 
of a Law. 

§23. 

The Mishna sometimes starts with the particulars ol a law 
without having stated the principal law to which those partic- 
ulars refer. In this case the Gemara asks: 

....^np"T "»*$£> tOTl KJH Where (on what basis) docs the 
author of this Mishna stand, that he here teaches....? i. e. to 
what general law does he refer? or where is the principal law 
of these particulars? 

Examples: Berachoth 2a; Taanith 2a; see also Shebuoth 
17b. 

The answer is introduced by the phrase: itfp onn "he 
refers to the passage there".... (in which the required basis is 
stated). 



Modes of treating an anonymous Mishna. 203 

8. Investigating the Authorship of an Anonymous Mishna. 

§24. 

The Gemara often endeavors to trace an anonymous Mish- 
na to its author, i. e. to find out whether or not that anony- 
mous Mishu a represents the opinion of a certain Tana expressed 
elsewhere in another Mishna or in a Baraitha. Such an 
investigation is introduced by one of the following phrases. 

a. ...«in }8D Who is that Tana (author)?..., Berachoth 
40a; Yoma 14a; Megilla 19b. 

b. ...jn^nD "UD or...ijE jn^fiDWhose opinion represents 
our Mishna?... B. Kamma 33a; Gittin 10a; Nedarim 87a. 

c. *on '3 "1 ?"»jp «n Whose opinion is this? It is that of 
Rabbi A... B. Metzia 40b. 

d. t6s3 K^t irPJHD Our Mishna does not represent the 
opinion of.... B. Kamma 32a. 

Remark 1. Where the investigation is merely problematical with 
a negative result, it is generally preceded by w 1 } (or kjo^j), is it to 
say...? The answer is then usually: ...NDT) l^BK, you may even say... 
(our Mishna agrees with the opinion of that Tana); as: JJVjrjD NID^ 
&wn ^Xn S D fc&T, Is it to say that our Mishna does not represent the 
opinion of that certain Rabbi in the Baraitha ? B. Kamma 30a; B. 
Metzia 2b; Kiddushin 52b. Sometimes, it is also phrased: pn KD"v 
NDnD..'"D (vbl) Is it to say, that that which is taught here anonymously 
does- (or does not) agree with the view of that Rabbi? Berachoth 25b; 
Betza 27b; Bechoroth 28a. 

Remark 2. Also where the Mishna records a dissenting opinion 
of the sages collectively by DnoW DVD3m, the Gemara often investig- 
ates D^lMn jND, Who is the representative of these sages ? f. ex. Gittin 
22a; B. Metzia 60b; Sanhedrin 66a. 

9. Investigating the Force of a Comprehensive or a Limiting 

term. 
A. Comprehensive Terms. 
§25. 
As stated above chapter I, 1. 8, the Mishna often intro- 



204 Terminology and Methodology. 

duces the provisions of law by general and comprehensive 
terms, as "HEN f?f?5 hbln "T ,^Ofi ,b2 which terras are assumed 
to imply other cases in addition to those expressly mentioned. 
Investigating the force of such a comprehensive term, the Ge- 
mara usually asks : itfD ^ins^ What is this to include? What 
is this term to add? 

Examples: Pesachim 8a ; Chagiga 2a ; Gittin 19a. See 
Erubin 2a-3b. 

B. Limiting Terms. 
§26. 

Where the Mishna is making use of a limiting term (see 
above I, 9. 10), the question of the Gemara is: ^ND '•DiyD 2 ? 
What is this to exclude? 

Examples: Pesechim 76b; Kiddushin 3a; B. Kammai3b. 
10. Investigating the Reference of a Certain Statement 
in the Mishna. 

§ 27. 

After having laid down certain provisions of the law, the 
Mishna sometimes adds either a modification or a dissenting 
opinion without clearly stating to which of the preced- 
ing provisions this addition refers. Investigating such a 
case the Gemara usually asks: fcOTiK to which ? i. e. to which 
of the preceding provisions or cases does this addition refer ? 
This question is generally followed by:....ND^tf shall I say.... 
(it refers to the latter or to the former case)? 

Examples: Berachoth 34b; Kiddushin 46a; Sanhedrin 79a. 

11. Qualifying a Provision of the Mirhna. 

§ 28. 

Without an introductory question, the Gemara often quali- 
fies a provision of the Mishna by limiting its application to 
certain circumstances. The phrases used for this purpose are: 

a. K^""ta&"*ttta 13C \lb they only taught this in reference 



Modes of treating an anonymous Mishna. 205 

to.... (a case under that certain circumstance), but., (under 
the different circumstance of...) not. 

Examples: Berachoth 42b; Succah 32a; B. Kamma 28a. 

b. fc6. v .fatf....tfpTm only.... but... not. 

Examples: Yebamoth 98b; B. Bat lira 146a; Aboda Zara 
74b. 

c. The shortest phrase for this purpose is : ....£> Kirn 
provided that 

Examples: Sabbath 53a; B. Metzia 11a; Maccoth 6a. 
Remark. The phrase n^k \$p tf^ corresponds to the Mishnic 
phrase DniDK DniH H03 or Tll^K. 

12. Extending a Provision of the MIshna. 
§ 29. 

Opposite to the preceding case, the Gemara often also ex- 
tends the effect of a provision above the limits or circumstan- 
ces indicated in the Mishna. The usual phrase for such an ex- 
tension is: .... l^SN K^tt&'SD....^ not strictly., (to the circum- 
stance stated in the Mishna refers this law) but even... 

Examples: Berachoth 53b; Kethuboth 23a; B. Metzia 34a. 

Remark. This phrase introducing an extension of the law is 
often shortened to the simple word: .. . I^BN or l^DfrO and even...-, f. i. 
B. Metzia 22b; 26b; Aboda Zara 41a. 

13. Making Conclusions and Deductions from the Mishna. 

§ 30. 

A conclusion or deduction made either from the contents 
or from the wording of the Mishna is termed KpTH (B. Metzia 
8a) or fcOpyr (Kethuboth 31b). Such conclusions at the outset of 
the Gemara form generally the basis of a subsequent question 
and are introduced by one of the following technical terms and 
phrases: 

a K-^K hence..., consequently..., f. ex. Yoma 14b; 

Betza 9b; B. Metzia 37a. 



206 Terminology and Methodology. 

b. ...f?3K...T KE^tD the reason (of the decision given in this 
Mishna) is...., but... (under different circumstances the decision 
must be different) ; f. ex. Pesachim 9a ; B. Kamma 47b; B. 
Metzia 18a; 25a. 

- Remark. This latter phrase is especially used where a conclusion 
is made from a positive statement to the negative, or vice versa. Such 
conclusions are sometimes also phrased: $&.. (xn) y#... (in this case) 
yes, but... (in the opposite case) not; f. ex Berachoth 17b; Nazir 34b; 
Chullin 13a. 

c. ...nTD yw(abbr. WW) hear from this, conclude from 
this that... f. ex. Berachoth 13a. Interrogatively it is phrased 
WO njJOttf do you not conclude from this...? Yoma 37b; San- 
hedrin 71a; B. Metzia 97b. 

Remark. D /y K> is mostly used in deductions by which a legal prin- 
ciple is finally to be established. At the end of an argument the phra- 
se jd"sj> expresses the acceptance of the preceding conclusions as 
proved and correct, and is then to be translated by : you may hear it 
herefrom, it is proved herefrom. 

d .... bbsti in this is implied that. . , from this follows that. . . ; 
f. ex Pesachim 45a, Sanhedrin 66a. This term of inference is 
often preceded by:... ^HpTD since the Mishna teaches.., as : 
^30... •ttnpIO since he teaches...., it follows. ...; f. ex. Bera- 
choth 43a, B. Kamma 2a; or...^DD...^np kH« "OnplD since 
he teaches.... and not...., it follows...; f. ex. Kethuboth 90a. 

e mow n«T this tells, this teaches that.... This 

phrase introduces deductions of a general principle from a spe- 
cial case in the Mishna, f. ex. Berachoth 20b; Rosh Hash ana 
22a; B. Kamma 35b. 



CHAPTER III. 

THE GEMARA CRITICISING THE MISHNA. 

Another kind of questions with which the Gemara intro- 
duces its comments on the Mishna are those of astonishment 
and surprise at finding therein either an incongruity or an in- 
consistency, a superfluity or an omission, or another difficulty. 
The following are the different modes in which questions and 
objections of this kind are set forth and answered. 

1. Finding an incongruity of Expressions. 

§ 31. 

A. Incongruity in one and the same Mishna paragraph. 

... 2 D"D1 ...3 nnS ''Why begin with... (this term or 
expression) and then end with... (a different one)? 1 ' 

Example: rP2m D"D1 122 nns B. Kamma 27a. Other 
examples: Moed Katon lib, B. Bathra 17b. 

The answer is usually. . . . l^Ti- . • • ir-Tl it is this. . . it is the same\ 
i. e. both expressions are identical, mean the same thing. 

B. Incongruity of Expressions in Different Parts of the 

MiSHNA. 

... •om cnn w» •wdi ....^m ton kjp ">kb (abbr. etc) 

"Why is the Mishna using here.... (this expression), and there., 
(a different one)?" 

Examples: Sabbath 2b; Kiddushin 2a; Shebuoth 5a. 

Remark. The answer to this question is sometimes : fcWlUI Kan 
^Op KTII'TI Dnni b"£p "by that change of expression it was intended 
to add something new and unexpected here as well as there" : f. ex. 
Kidd. 59b. 

2. Finding a Tautology in the Mishna. 

§32. 
The technical phrase used in the objection to a tautology is: 



208 Terminology and Methodology. 

...l^T, ....WH ''Is not.... (this expression or case) the same as... 
(that other one)?"; why then this repetition? 

Examples: Iiosh Hashana 23b; B. Kamma 17b; Shebu- 
buoth 12b. 

3. Objecting to the Order of the Stated Cases. 

§ 33. 

Ktr-I2....\jrp*? KB»-D....*Om KJff ^KD Why does the Mish- 
na just teach the case of.... first, instead of teaching that 
other case of... first? 

Examples: Berachoth 2a; B. Bathra 108a; Bechoroth 13a. 

4. Objecting to a Certain Mode op Expression. 

§ 34. 

a. ...^n^ .... Wftb n^b "fib Why does the author of the 
Mishna use the expression...., instead of using.... (that other 
expression)? 

Examples: Sabbath 90b; B. Metzia 2a; B. Bathra 98b. 

b. ...wf?.... ,, 2fn fcO^K ^D What does he intend to teach 
in using this expression, instead of....? 

Examples: Yebamoth 84a; Kiddushin 69a. 

Remark. The answer to such an objection is often: 21R ND^D 
V'Dp rpmiK (In using this expression) he lets us hear something by 
the way, namely... ; f. ex. Berachoth 2a. 

5. Objecting to a Certain Limitation of a Provision m 
the Mishna. 

§ 35. 

"'DJ I^SK-... K'H'W ^ND Why just teaching.. ..since the law 
applies also to...-? 

Examples: Pesachim 50b; Gittin 34b; B. Bathra 59b. 

6. Finding an Omission of a Distinction between two Cases. 

§ 36. 

The objection to such an omission is generally phrased in 
the following way: 



The Gemara criticising the Mishna. 209 

...s:tr k&...*w $b wi p^DS sp 

"The Mishna decides here. ... without distinguishing be- 
tween.... and... ;it is right... (concerning the one case), but why 
should the law apply also to.... (the other case)?" 

Examples: Succah 29b; Gittin 10b; Sanhedrin 18b. 

7. Finding an Expression to be Incorrect or too Indefinite. 

§37. 

"injn 8pbD (abbr. T'D) Does this enter your mind? i. e.,do 
you indeed mean to say this? 

Examples; Yoma 67b; Pesachim 42b; Kiddushin 29a. 
The corrected version is then usually introduced by; tf^tf 
..KD'W but rather say.... 

8. Finding a Term or Provision to be out of Place. 

§38. 

rPDttf "Ol jKD Who mentioned the name of this? i. e. what 
has this to do here? how is this to be mentioned in this con- 
nection? 

Examples. Sabbath 57 a, Pesachim 8b, Nazir 4a. 

The answer to this question is generally introduced by the 
phrase: 10Kp 'On thus he means to say, or by : K1DITD "Hion 
''jrip wn something is omitted here which must be supplied 
by construction, namely.... 

9. Finding a Certain Provision of the Mishna Unnecessary, 
being too Plain and Obvious to be expressly Mentioned. 

§39. 

Kt^tPfi "this is too plain!" i. e., why make this provision 
for a case which is so plain ? why state that which is a mat- 
ter of course? 

Examples: Berachoth 20b; 47b; Pesachim 21b; Megilla 25a. 

The full phrase of this elliptical expression is itfo KtD^S 



210 Terminology and Methodology. 

NlE^ it is too plain, why then expressly say (teach) it? f. ex. 
Nedarim 16 a. 

In answer to this objection, the Gemara generally tries to 
show that under certain circumstances the provision under consi- 
deration is not as plain and self-evident as it appears to be ; or 
that it was needed in order to prevent some possible misunder- 
standing in the application of the general law. Such an answer 
is mostly phrased either: 

.... (p20) S^S WHX $b it is not so (plain), as it is needed 
for the case...;or:... tf^DK yi>H tipbo ■pftX'W it was necessary 
to state this, since you might have misunderstood me to say. . . ; 
or: f?'Dp....KDWnnD what you might have supposed is that....; 
therefore the author informs us (of this provision). 

Remark. Different from this meaning of the word ND^a, as an 
elliptical expression of astonishment and objection is that, when the 
word precedes a propounded question of problem, where two cases 
are set forth one of which is plain and obvious enough, but not the 
other. In such a connection the word is simply a statement of self- 
evidence, and is to be translated by: this case is clear and plain, but 
(my question concerns that other case); f. ex. Berachoth 12a; B. Kamma 
8b; Kiddushin 8b. This kind of ND't^a is generally explained in Rashi's 
commentary by the remark KnilVJS "in calmness" i. e. to be read here 
not as a question but in a calm manner as a plain statement, while the 
other kind of Ktwa is explained by JTEm "in astonishment". As a 
simple statement preceding a question of doubt and problem, the term 
KD^B is sometimes supplied in the Talmud by the word ^ "this case 
is plain to me"; f . ex. Sabbath 3b; Megillah 3b. 

10. Finding an Unnecessary Repetition of the Same Provision 
already stated elsewhere. 

§ 40. 

The question objecting to such a repetition is phrased: 
a. (SWT Kin) fcWJn V'Dp '♦ND What does he inform us 

here, since I have already once before been informed thereof in 

another passage of the Mishna? 



The Gemara criticising the Mishna. 211 

Examples: Berachoth 50a; Kethuboth 42a; 65b. 

b. N:av Sin WOfl (Sn) But I learned this already once 
before.... 

Examples: Sabbath 89b; B. Metzia 55a; Sanhedrin 20b. 

c. ...rrt KJn Xn ^ mb in Kfi Why do I need this again, 
since he taught this already once before? Example: Gittin 15a. 

The answer is introduced in different ways according to 
its different nature: 

a. ...V'Dp N" this he intends to inform us here, that.... 

b n ,,J ? fcCHtfiXK S^D on account of the addition to be 

made here, this repetition was necessary. 

c. ...ICHX it was necessary (to repeat here this provi- 
sion), since.... 

d. V'Dp..«rt:S m" , »8nD , 'K it* to derive it from that 
other Mishna, 1 might have supposed that...., therefore here 
the additional information. 

Remark. Where a similar provision is found in two Masechtoth 
concerning different, though analogous, cases, the question of unne- 
cessary repetition is not raised, but the Gemara simply states: 

....fcOnyi VU ''Nn ^....U: Wpm also in reference to.. ..the Mishna 
provides for a case similar to this, but both of these provisions are 
necessary, for.... 

Examples: Kiddushin 50a; Gittin 74a; B. Metzia 119a. 

11. Finding in a Mishna an Unnecessary Abundance of 
Analogous Cases. 

§41. 

a. *b nftb ^n bl Why are all these cases needed? 
Examples: Succah IT a; Kethuboth 23b; Bechoroth 2a. 

b. (-n M"n) f} "D^ in «n Why is this case still added 
(since both cases are identical)? 

Examples: Yebamoth 23b; Kiddushin 65a; Shebuoth 2Tb. 

c. ...\inD*? rrt nofy -^innb Wb HO 2 ? Why does he need 
to teach... and then teach again...? 

Examples: B. Metzia 33b; Shebuoth 2Tb; Kiddushin 60b. 
The answer, always introduced by fcC'HX "it is necessary" 



212 Terminology and Methodology. 

or "Oi^x ''all the mentioned cases are necessary", generally at- 
tempts to show that with each of the stated cases a peculiar 
circumstance is connected on account of which the analogy 
with the other case might have been objected to, hence the ex- 
press statement of all cases. The phraseology of this answer is 
mostly: Vftp ... W*DK mn ... fcOn W ior if the author had 
only taught... (that other case) I might have supposed....; the- 
refore he lets us hear this. 

Remark. The question "why are all these cases needed?" is some- 
times omitted and the Gemare starts with the explanation: jonvi it 
was necessary (to state all these cases), since...; f. ex. Sabbath 122a; 
Kiddushin 50b; B. Kamma 32b. 

12. Finding one of two Cases Superfluous, since a fortiori 
Implied in the Other. 

§42. 

The question based on the argument a fortiori is generally 
phrased: (pp bl ^i) «^2D ...(KDH) ."..JTipK -..(Dnn HDl) Knffn 
if (there in the one case) you say... (that the decision 
is...) can it here (in our case) be questionable ? i. e., is it not 
here the more so, why then state the other case? 

Examples: Rosh Hashana 32b; Pesachim 55b; Yebamoth 
30a; Shebuoth 32b. 

Remark. The answer to this objection is sometimes, that the 
Mishna intended to arrange cases in a climax ("|| P|K IT tfb, Rosh Hashana 
32b), or in an anticlimax (IT "1D^ "p"l¥ pKI IT, Kethuboth 58a). Concern- 
ing these two phrases see above § 13 and § 14. 

13. Finding an Omission of Cases where the Mishna ex- 
pressly Limits their Number. 
§43. 

a. ...*fi3 W^l (or ijnjO should not the author also have 
added the case of....? 

Examples: B. Metzia 55a; Yebamoth 53a; Zebachim 49b. 



The Gemara Criticising the Mishna. 213 

b fcO^N Km (fcO^) $b im are there not more cases? 

but behold, there is the case of.... (which is not mentioned). 

Examples: GJ-ittin 9b; 86a; Chullin 42a; Menachoth 74b. 
14. Finding a General Rule op Law not Cover g all cases. 

§44. 

....-Tin Kin K^Dl Is this a general rule ? behold the case 
of... (to which it does not apply.) 

Examples: Kiddushin 34a; 66b; Temurah 14a; Chullin 59a. 

15. Finding a Decision of the Mishna not in Accordance 
with an Established Principle. 

§45. 

....Km H KEK or itfDfett Why so ? How is this? Is this not 
against the principle of...? 

Examples: Berachoth 47b; Betza 31b; B. Metzia 94a. 

Remark. The question \>{ftK is sometimes omitted, and must be 
supplied, f . ex. in B. Metzia 99a; Gittin 22b. 

16. Finding a Different Decision regarding two Cases 
which ought to have been treated alike. 

§ 46. . 

KB^D KW WD1 Wn KJff *»«D What difference is there 
between the former and the latter case ? i. e., since the two 
cases mentioned in the Mishna are seemingly alike, why does 
the decision in the one case differ from that in the other? 

Examples: B. Metzia 65b; B. Bathra 20a; Kiddushin 64a. 

17. Finding an Inconsistency of Principles in one and the 
same Mishna Paragraph. 
§47. 
The phraseology mostly used in such objection of inconsist- 
ency is: 

.... KD^K .... niDKI... RD^t. -".rnDK, fcWp HSU Kfi is this 
not self-contradictory ? you say . . . hence. . . . and then you say. . . . 
hence...? i. e., the underlying principle or the consequence of 
one part of this Mishna contradicts that of the other part. 



214 Terminology and Methodology. 

Examples: Berachoth 50a, B. Kamma 39, B, Metzia 31a. 

When the self-contradiction is more obvious, the objection 
is simply phrased: 

.;..tft2?'H mDK Km but did you not say in the first part...? 

Examples: Betza 31b; Moed Katon 13a; Gittin 21b. 

Remark. In answer to such an objection, the Gemara usually at- 
tempts to reconcile the contradictory members of the Mishna. Some- 
times, however, the contradiction is admitted by th? ohrase: ^D N"Qn 
IT 71J&» sb IT rUB>8? verily, (or, here is a break!) he who taught this part 
did not teach the other; i. e., this Mishna does not represent the opinion 
of one author, but the opposite opinions of two different teachers; f. ex, 
Sabbath 92b; B. K. 47b. 

18. Finding a Law Report quoted in the Mishna to be 
Contrary to the Preceding Law. 

§48. 

As stated above § 6, the Mishna, after having laid down a 
rule of law, occasionally adds the report of a certain case(n^JJD) 
in which a celebrated authority gave a decision in accordance 
with that law. Sometimes, however, that decision is just con- 
trary to the preceding law. In this case, the Gemara starts 
with the question : TinD^ ntttyD is this report to contradict 
(the preceding)? i. e., instead of corroborating the preceding 
law, it just conflicts with it. 

Examples: Betza 24a; Gittin 66a, B. Metzia 102b. 

This question is generally answered by: "om snDnD "HlOn 
*%r\p something is missing here, and thus the Mishna ought to 
read.... i. e., the Mishna evidently omitted here a dissenting 
opinion which must be supplied by construction, and to this 
opinion the report refers. 

19. Finding a Conflict of Authoritative Passages. 
§49. 

Anonymous and undisputed paragraphs of the Mishna and 
of the Baraitha are generally regarded to be authoritative 
(See above § 1). But the Gemara often finds such a paragraph 



The Gemara Criticising the Mishna. 215 

of the Mishna to be in conflict with another passage of the Mish 
na or of a Baraitha. This objection of contradiction is usually in- 
troduced by: ... "WDTI (contraction of ifiW tfjtf *ny\) I raise 
against this the question of a conflict of authorities, i. e. I 
find this Mishna in conflict with the following passage in another 
Mishna or in a Baraitha. . . . 

Examples: Berachoth 26a; Taanith 4b , Sanhedrin 33a, 
The answer, mostly introduced by : fcPfcyp S^ this is no dif- 
ficulty, generally removes the contradiction by showing either, 
that the conflicting passages treat of different cases or circum- 
stances (...]fcO*1....JfcO), or that those passages represent the 
opposite views of different teachers ('3 "\ tfni '&'*[ Nil). 

Remark 1. Where not the plain Mishna, but its underlying 
principle or its consequence is in disharmony with an other Mishna 
or a Baraitha, there the question inrDTI is preceded by an argument 
pointing out that principle or consequence. Examples: Berachoth 17b; 
Yoma 14b; B. Metzia 18a. 

Remark 2. The introductory phrase TUW) is often omitted 
and the question of a conflict of authorities is started simply by ...prim 
but are we not informed in another Mishna ...? or ...fcOJnm is it not 
stated in a Baraitha (differently) ? Examples: Rosh Hashana 27a; B. 
Kamma 61a; Gittin 23b. 



CHAPTER IV. 

TREATMENT OP A MISHNA CONTAINING A DIFFER- 
ENCE OF OPINION. 
1. Asking for the Reason of the Dissenting Teacher. 

§50. 

....'Ti KE^tD \SO what is the reason of Rabbi.... (the dis- 
senting teacher)? 

The answer is usually followed by the further question 
SDp fcOm an d the first anonymous teacher ? or pant and our 
other teachers? i. e., what have they to say against this reason? 

Examples: Berachoth 15a; 44a; R. Hashana 22a; B. 
Kamina 23b. 

2. Asking for a Counter-argument. 
§51. 

The Mishna sometimes records an argument of one of the 
dissenting teachers against his opponent which is neither ac- 
cepted nor refuted by the latter. In this case, the Gemara 
usually asks for the probable counter-argument of that oppon- 
ent, in the following way: 

?C0 "VI (2) ,m \b (K) n rrt nDKp 1W Very well did Rabbi 
A argue against Rabbi B, What then had the latter to say? 

Examples: R. Hoshana 26a; Megilla 2Tb; Kiddushin 61a. 

3. Finding two of Several Opinions to be Identical. 

§52. 

After having laid down an opinion concerning a case, the 
Mishna sometimes adds two dissenting opinions, one of which 
does not at all seem to differ from that which had been laid 
down first. The Gemara then usually asks: 

KDp Kjn WPt ....'1 (or D^n) Is not the opinion of R. 
So and So (or of the sages) identical with that of the first men- 
tioned teacher? 



Discussing the difference of opinion in a Mishna. 217 

Examples: Berachoth 30a; Sanhedrin 15b; Aboda Zara 7b. 
The answer to this question is generally... ln^M fcCK 
there is a difference between them concerning. . . . 

4. Investigating the Principle Underlying the Difference 

of Opinion. 

§ 53. 

"CD (3) 'T1...*CD (K) "1 fr&WEp ^KM In what (principle) 
do they differ? R. A holds... and R. B holds.... 

Examples: Succah 16a; Betza 26a; Gittin 64b. 

Remark. Where such an investigation is problematic only, it is 
introduced by: .,.13D -IOU..-DD n»1 ^bfi'Dp Kill NO^ is it to say, 
that they differ concerning the principle of...., so that one holds that 
..., and the other holds that....? The answer is then generally: $ 
• ••^30 NE^y &6"D1 No, both of them agree concerning this principle, 
but they differ concerning another principle, namely.... 
Examples: Pesachim 46b; Nazir 62b; Sanhedrin 23a. 

5. Limiting the Point of Difference between the Dissent- 

ing Teachers. 

§ 54. 

....^Dn ^2*7.... bz$ ...3 np"6riD the difference concerns 
only...., but regarding.... all agree that.... 

Examples: Berachotb 41a, Betza 9a, B. Kamma 61a. 
Remark. Where such a limitation of the difference between Ta- 
nairn is to offer a basis for a subsequent question, it is usually phrased 
as follows: 

• . "T.-bK.-.-^K^a^ |K3 IV so far only they differ that 

but concerning. ...both of them agree that... etc. 

Examples: Sabbath 132a; Yebamoth 50b; B. Metzia 28b. 

6. Inquiring why the Dissent of the Teachers in one Case 

does not extend also to the other. 

.§ 55. 

•o^sn ss^d arpi w^s Kbi am w^ «.«d 

What difference is between the former and this case that 



218 Terminology and Methodology. 

they dissent here and not also there (though both cases are 
seemingly alike)? 

Examples: Yebamoth 38a; Kethuboth 78a; Oittin 65a. 

Remark. Sometimes that question is phrased shorter : Jl^B^l 
(NtynDNna s £0 Ought not this teacher also to differ in the other case? 
Ex. Sabbath 39a; Nazir 11a; Yeb. 118a. 

7. Finding an Inconsistency of Opinion in one of the Con- 

testing Teachers. 
§ 56. 

a (*o:nm) pnm "1 "CD1 Does this teacher hold 

the opinion....? but in that other Misbna (or in that Baraitha) 
he expresses the opposite opinion? 

Examples; Yebamoth 44a; 122a; Kethuboth 56a; Chul- 
lin 100b. 

b. ...pnm ..."6 TV*b JV^I Does this teacher not hold that 
..., but in that other Mishna he expresses himself differently? 
Examples: B. Kamma61b; Aboda Zara 6b. 

8. Finding an Inconsistency of Opinion in both of the Con- 

testing Teachers. 

§57. 

....inb (a) ..'Ti .... -\2D («) .."n kid^ 
.... («^m) pm ir\b p^yoty kds^k Km 

Is this to say that Rabbi A holds that ...., and Rabbi B 
that....; but from that other Mishna (or Baraitha) we under- 
stand just the reverse. . . ? 

Examples: Berachoth 17b; Pesachim 49b; Kiddushin 64b; 
Sanhedrin 21a. 

Remark. The contradiction is generally removed by the answer 
that in one of the conflicting passages ntD'SPn riD^niD "the position of 
the contesting teachers is to be reversed", or shorter -pQ*K "I reverse", 
that is, I correct the Mishna or Baraitha by placing Rabbi A instead 
of Rabbi B and vice versa. To such a correction suggested by one of 



Discussing the difference of opinion in a Mishna. 219 

the Amoraim, another sometimes objects: -|1STI N? "you do not need 
to reverse", as I have to offer another way of reconciling these two 
passages. 

9. Hypothetical Conclusion from the Opposite Opinions of 
Dissenting Teachers. 

§58. 

If you should find (conclude) that according to the opinion 
of Rabbi A.... (a certain case must be decided in a certain 
way), then according to the opinion of Rabbi B.... (that case 
must be decided differently). 

Examples: Pesachim lib, 121a; B. Metzia 40b; Sanhed- 
rin 78 a. 



CHAPTER V. 

THE GEMARA QUOTING THE MISHNA AND KINDRED 

WORKS. 

1. Terms Used in Referring to the Mishna. 
§ 59. 
In contradistinction to the extraneous Mishna or Baraitha, 
also called tfrpjno, the authorized Mishna of R. Jehuda Ha- 
nasi is termed jTPjnD or "tfrWD our Mis/ma, and the author of 
a teaching contained in a paragraph of this Mishna, is desig- 
nated as 1V7 tfin our teacher, in contradistinction to N"13 tf:n 
the teacher in the Baraitha; f. ex. Moed Katon 17b; B. K. 61a. 
Quotations from the Mishna are introduced by: 

a. pn (contraction of ptf "^H we learn, study) we are taught 
(in a Mishna). 

b. Dnn pn we are taught there. This phrase is mostly 
used when a Mishna belonging to another Masechta is to be 
quoted; f. ex. Yoma 2a; B. Metzia 9b. Exceptionally, how- 
ever, it refers also to a passage in the same Masechta; f. ex. 
Pesachim 4b; Maccoih 16a. 

c. WJn (— I^W) we have learned, we have been taught 
in a Mishna (rarely referring also to a Baraitha). 

This term is used only in certain phrases as wan b''£)p "»SD 
What- does he inform us here, since we have already been taught 
thereof in that Mishna? f. ex. Berachoth50a,or feO^n "^ pK t|K 
we have also a Mishna to the same effect, f. ex. Berachoth 27a. 

2. Terms Used in Quoting the Tosephta and Baraitha. 

§ 60. 

a. fcOn one has taught, without adding any subject, mostly 
quotes a passage from the Tosephta, f. ex. Pesachim 53b; B. 
Metzia 28a. 

b. p^"i "UJi (abbr. yr\) our Rabbis taught , refers to a 
well known Baraitha, especially to passages from the Mechilta, 
Siphra and Siphre. 



Quoting the Mishna and kindred Works. 221 

c. S^jH it is a teaching, refers to a Baraitlia in general. 

Reinark. Two or more Baraithoth contradicting each other are 
generally introduced by:....-|TK *Wn1»..TPK «Wl.».*nn 'jn in one Ba- 
raitha it is taught...; in the other.... and again in another....; f. ex. 
Maccoth 7b. 

3. Different Purposes of Such Quotations. 
§ 61. 

1. pn or cnn pn, at the outset of the Gemara, intro- 
duces another Mishna which directly or indirectly has some 
bearing upon the passage of the Mishna under consideration ;or 
it is intended to use the latter as an argument in a discussion on 
the quoted Mishna. 

Examples: Sabbath 2a; Pesachim lib? B. Metzia 9b. 

Remark, pnm at the outset of the Gemara as well as under a dis- 
cussion in the same, raises a question of contradiction or incongruity 
from the cited Mishna ; pm or pni or pn tfb '•D adduces a support 
from that Mishna. 

2. KJH, at the outset of the Gemara, usually introduces a 
brief quotation from the Tosephta explaining or qualifying a 
certain point in the Mishna under consideration. 

Examples: Berachoth 50b; Yoma 19a; B. Metzia 28a. 

3. fc^jn, at the outset of the Gemara, introduces a pas- 
sage from a Baraitha in which a difference of opinion mentioned 
in the Mishna is more fully set forth with the addition of some 
arguments. 

Examples: Berachoth 12b; Pesachim 27b; Maccoth 7b. 
Remark 1. fcpjnm raises a question of contradiction from that 
Baraitha. 1 K^ffl or K^m or ^jni3 refers to the Baraitha as an ar- 



1 Exceptionally, fcOJfifTI is sometimes used not as a question of 
contradiction, but as an argument in support of a statement, in the 
sense of fcTJnV In this case, Rashi in his commentary generally re- 
marks: xnin^U "in calmness", or xny^D "a support", i. e., the phrase 
fifOnrfi is here not a question, but a calm statement in support of the 
preceding; f. ex. Moed Katon 19b in the first line; Gittin 74b; Kidd. 60b. 



222 Terminology and Methodology. 

gument tn support of something stated in a discussion. The phrase: 
s 3n "'DJ N'jn we have also a Baraitha to the same effect, is used to 
show that an explanation or opinion just expressed by an Amora is 
corroborated by that Baraitha, while the phrase: ...T ["PITD fcTjn we 
have a Baraitha coinciding with.... is a reference in support of an 
opinion of one Amora against that of his opponent. 

Remark. 2. In quotations following after the phrases TinO"rt "I 
raise a question of contradiction against this" and '•IIWD "they object 
to this by appealing to a higher authority" the terms pn as well as j^jn 
are always omitted, thus leaving it uncertain whether the quotation is 
from the Mishna or from the Baraitha. In most cases, however, this 
can be ascertained by looking up the parallel passages which are mark- 
ed in the marginal glosses of the Talmud. 

4. p2i "Uri (abbr. *\"r\) introduces longer passages from 
a well known Baraitha, mostly from the Tosephta, Mechilta, 
Siphra and Siphre which stand in some connection with the 
Mislma-paragraph under consideration. Such quoted passages 
are then usually explained and discussed in the Gemara in the 
same way as a Mishna-paragraph. 

Examples: Berachoth 16a; Sabbath 19a; B. Kamma 9b. 

Remark. Y'JYT "for the Rabbis taught'' usually introduces the 
answer to the question of fryo or D"n fcOD. (See above § 21.) Vn is 
never used as a question or objection, hence not i"n Kill, but instead 
thereof, fcO^nm is used. 

5. YTPI Kilb WOfi "what we read in this Mishna has 
reference to that which the Rabbis taught". The meaning of 
this often used phrase is, the Mishna before us supports the 
following Baraitha, so as to make it authoritative. 

Examples: B. Metzia 25a; Maccoth 8b; Kiddushin 29a. 

4. Referring back to a Preceding Quotation. 

§62. 

There are, besides, two peculiar terms of reference which 
are often used in the Gemara for the purpose of indicating that 
a quotation incidentally made in a preceding discussion is now 



Quoting the Mishna and kindred Works. 223 

to be taken up as a main subject of investigation and discus- 
sion. The terms indicating this are: 

a. ID IDS the master (teacher) said above 

Examples. Berachoth 2a; Pesachim 5b; B. Kamma 33b. 

b. SS12 (the body, the substance, the subject) meaning, 
that which was mentioned above incidentally is now to to be the 
main subject. This term is usually translated by: it was stated 
above; our text says; returning to our subject. 

Examples: Berachoth 40b; Pesachim 16a; Sanhedrin 24a. 

The difference between these two terms is that, as a rule, 
the former is used in reference to a quotation from the Mishna 
or Baraitha, and SS15 in regard to a quoted saying of an Amora. 

Remark 1. This rule admits, however, some exceptions, as on 
the one hand, *1D "IDS is occasionally also applied to a saying of an 
Amora; f. ex. Rosh Hashana 20b; Yoma 21b; Gittin 12b; on the other 
hand, KS1J is sometimes found as a reference to a Baraitha and even 
to a Mishna, especially a Mishna belonging to those sections to which no 
Gemara is extant; f. ex. Berachoth 18a; Succah 14a; Kiddushin 4a. 
See Rashi on Succah 14a, s. v. i^n D1EMD* In B. Kamma 13a, both terms 
are used as references to the same Baraitha. 

Remark 2. Different from "DO "iDN, in ihe above mentioned sense, 
are the phrases -)D "IDS! "for the teacher said" and -jjo iptfm "but did 
not the teacher say?" which are used where in an argument, reference 
is made to a well known saying of an anonymous author; f. ex. Be- 
rachoth 4a; B. Metzia 6a. 



C. M B M R A. 

CHAPTER VI. 

Definition of and Phrases concerning Memra. 
§ 63. 

In contradistinction to the teachings, opinions and deci- 
sions of the Tanaim, contained in the Mishna and Baraitha, a 
reported teaching, opinion or decision of the Amoraim is termed 
Memra (frO^D), a saying. 

This term, like that of Amora, is derived from the verb 
"IDN to say, which verb is mostly used in reference to the ex 
pounders of the Mishna; while the verbs nat? and ^n are more 
restricted to references to Mishna and Baraitha. \ 

As a characteristic term designating a reported teaching 
of the Amoraim, the word Memra is but rarely met with in the 
Talmud; f. i. Gittin 42b; B. Bathra 48a. More frequently it 
occurs in the post - Talmudic literature. In the Gemara such 
reported opinions and decisions of Amoraim, especially con- 
cerning legal matters are generally termed SW maattha{$T\T\y&2 
that which was heard by tradition, f. ex. Berachoth 42a; Sab- 
bath 24b; Chullin 46a), in contradistiction to Agadatha, a re- 
ported homiletical teaching. 

A Memra is generally introduced by the word ^DN a certain 
Amora said, related; sometimes also this word is preceded by 
the term nans (contraction of n!DSn«) it has been said, it is 
reported. 



1 Compare, for instance, the two modifying phrases: ..K^K *OtJ> ^h 
and N^K p£N K^, the former exclusively used in reference to a state- 
ment of the Mishna, and the latter to a teaching af an Amora. In 
connection with a Memra the verb ton is used only in certain phrases 
as: ...KnN... , rf>En Nnb ^T\D1 fcO'K "some report the just quoted saying 
of that Amora in reference to the following case...."; f. ex. Berachoth 
8b; Sanhedrin 28b; Aboda Zarah 3b. 



Phrases concerning Memra. 225 

A. IDS 
§ 64. 

a. IDS preceding the name of a teacher, as zi IDS, gener- 
ally introduces an interpretation, opinion, principle or decision 
of law originated or reported by that Amora, and not disputed 
by another, while *\DS following the name, as ids 21 indicates 
at once that he is to be contradicted by another teacher, hold- 
ing a different view on that subject, as IDS ^S"IDBH..."iDS 2% 

b. '2 iJI^S IDS 'S ^fl IDS refers to a report which a 
disciple or a contemporary, makes concerning a teaching which 
he received orally from its author, as ^SlDttf IDS* nTirP 2*\ IDS 
Rab Juda said that Samuel said (Berachoth 12a). 

But ("i rPDttfD or) '2 Dl^D 'S "IDS refers to a report con- 
cerning a teaching which he indirectly received from an author- 
ity of a former generation, as : *DV "n DlttfD plTP '1 "IDS R. 
Jochanan reported in the name of R. Jose (Berachoth 7a). 

Where a different version existed concerning the teacher 
who reported or in whose name something is reported, that dif- 
ferent version is conscientiously added either by r6 ^IDSI and 
some say it was.... (Berachoth 4a); or SDWS1 (contracted of 
SDTI ^Sl) there are some who say it was.... (Berachoth 5a), 
or Ql^D Hi 1DD1 and some differ therefrom, saying it was in 
the name of... (Rosh Hashana 10a). 

d. "irmnn ''IDS! '2 ^Sl 'S ^S Both of the two teach- 
ers A and B said. . . This phrase introduces an opinion con- 
cerning which two Amoraim fully agree, though they mostly 
differ from each other, as irPTnn "HDK1 ^SlDtn 21 Both Rab 
and Samuel said.. (Berachoth 36b). 

B. -iDHS 
§65. 

The word 1DHS it was said, it is reported, especially at the 
beginning of a passage in the Gemara, generally introduces a 
Memra containing a difference of opinion or a controversy 
(tfrtt'fts) between two or more Amoraim. Such differences and 
controversies concern either: 



226 Terminology and Methodology. 

a. The proper reading of a passage in the Mishna, as 

pn nw» wni -mbk tit » -ions 
pn wo irK "lOK KDB n B. Kamma 37a. 
Other examples: Pesachim 64b; B. Metzia 80a; Shebu- 
oth 16a. 

b. The reason of a law laid down in the Mishna. 
Examples: Gittin 17b; B. Kamma 22a; B. Metzia 38a. 

c. The meaning of an expression used in the Mishna, a& 

B>00 1D:D -|»K 31 "1DJO 10nX 
njto 10K bwOBM Gittin 52b. 
Other examples: Kiddushin 60a; B. Bathra 106a. 

d. The final decision in a case concerning which the Ta- 
naim expressed opposite opinions, as: 

ma xmbn "iok b«wi p"riD Knabn tot* m -iodk 
B. Kamma 4\8b; b. Metzia 33a; Sanhedrin 28b. 

e. A principle of law not clearly stated in the Mishna, as: 

"01 DJn ID^b 10K n21 nTaK "OP TODK 
s on B>"8?a l»K b|dv m B. Kamma 56b. 
Other examples: Pesachim 30b, B. Metzia 21b, Sanhed- 
rin 27 a. 

f. A case not provided for in the Mishna. 

Examples: Berachoth 25a; Kiddushin 43a; B. Kamma 9a. 

Remark. There are also Memras containing a controversy with- 
out being introduced by the term "lOFIK, f . ex. Gittin 2a; B. Kamma 
3b; Aboda Zara 2a. On the other hand, this term is occasionally ap- 
plied also to a Memra containing no controversy, for instance Kiddu- 
shin 45a; especially, where reference is made to such a Memra in order 
to corroborate or correct the opinion of a later Amora by the phrase:... 
■♦30,3 ")OriK we have also a Memra of a former authority to the same 
effect, f. ex. Gittin 13b; or...n^y "lOnK Nil is not a certain Amora re- 
ported having remarked concerning this...? f. ex. Gittin 16b; B. Metzia 
29b. Besides, this word is used in certain phrases, as : ixb y i)bsn NH 
IDnX K&O vh$ "10HK B8TPB3 the opinion ascribed to Amora A was 
not expressly stated by him, but it is merely implied in an occasional 
decision given by him; f. ex. Berachoth 9a; Sabbath 29a; B. Kamma 
20b. 



CHAPTER VII. 

TREATMENT OP A MEMRA CONTAINING A SINGLE 
OPINION. 

1. QUESTIONING THE AUTHENTICITY" OP THE REPORTED MEMRA 

§ 66 - 

The correctness of the Memra is questioned, since the 
same author expressed elsewhere an opinion which is in con- 
flict with that contained in this Memra. Such a question is al- 
ways phrased : (JOS^S) n»S Km 'OH 'B ^DS ^Dl Did that 

Amora really say so ? But is he not reported as having said.... 
(something implying just the opposite opinion)? 

Examples: Berachoth 24b; Pesachim 30a; B. Kamma 29b. 

In answer to such a question, the Gemara generally tries 
to show, that in one or the other way the two contradicting 
Memras can be reconciled. 

Remark. All Amoraim being regarded as having equal authority, 
the objection that another Amora expressed an opinion conflicting 
with the Memra under consideration is generally not admitted. 
Where such an objection is attempted, it is rejected by the phrase : 
T\W\ Np K"03N K12J how will you raise an objection from the opinion 
of one man (teacher) against that of another (who has the same au- 
thority and is entitled to have an opinion of his own)? Taanith 4b; 
Sanhedrin 6a; B. Kamma 43b. 

Sometimes, however, such an objection is admitted, especially in 
the case where the opinion of an Amora is in conflict with the gener- 
ally accepted decision of a former leading authority among the Amo- 
raim. In this case, the objection is phrased: ....Km? TK Is that so ? 
but that other Amora (expressed an opinion which conflicts with 
that under consideration). Examples: Berachoth 14a; Moed Katon 
20a; Betza 9a ; compare Rashi's remark on the last mentioned pas- 
sage. 



228 Terminology and Methodology. 

2. Finding the Memra to be Colliding with a Mishna or 
a Baraitha. 

§67. 

The objection is raised against the author of the Memra 
that the latter is in conflict with an undisputed Mishna or Ba- 
raitha, the authority of which is superior to that of an Amora. 
Such an objection is generally introduced either by the phrase 
^rPD they (i. e. the members of the academy) refuted it, they 
raised a point of contradiction from the higher authority of a 
Mishna or Baraitha, or JT3WK he raised against this a point 
of contradiction from a higher authority, or "^s 2TID a cer- 
tain teacher refuted this, or simply by pnm but are we not 
taught in the Mishna ? fcOjnm are we not taught in the Ba- 
raitha. . . . (differently) ? 

Examples: Berachoth 10b; Rosh Hashana 6b; B. Metzia lOo. 

Remark. Such an objection or refutation from a higher autho- 
rity is termed WI3VTI. The argument of the objection often closes 
with the phrase "Ol^sn Knavn this is a refutation of that Amora; or 
KrOVTI ? "Olbsn WOVn is this not a refutation of that Amora ? It is a 
refutation! (i. e., the point of refutation is well taken). Mostly how- 
ever the objection is removed by showing that the Mishna or Baraitha 
referred to treats of a different case or different circumstances, and such 
a defense is introduced by the phrase: ...'a ifr -|£N that Amora might 
say (in answer to this objection) that...; f. ex., Berach. th 34a; B. 
Kamma 14a. 

3. Finding the Memra to be Superfluous. 



The Memra is shown to be unnecessary, since the same 
opinion which the Amora expresses therein is already stated 
in a Mishna. This objection is phrased: Win b"Cp "WD what 
does that Amora let us hear, since we have already been 
taught that in the following Mishna. . ? 

Examples: Berachoth 45b; Taanith 10a, B. Kamma 85b. 



Treatment of a plain Memra. 229 

Remark 1. This objection is mostly removed by showing that 
the Memra contains something in addition to the Mishna. 

Remark 2. The question V'Dp *NJ0 is not raised where the opinion 
of the Memra is not expressly but merely impliedly contained in the 
Mishna. In this case the Mishna is referred to just to corroborate the 
Memra by the phrase NJ^n 'D2 px S]K we have also a Mishna to 
the same effect; f. ex. Berachoth 27a; Yoma 26b; Aboda Zara 8a. 

4. CORROBORATING THE MEMRA BY A BARAITHA. 
§69. 

Such a corroborating Baraitha is generally introduced by 
the phrase: *on ''DJ S^H (abbr. jY'Jfi) a Baraitha, too, teaches 
thus; or, we have also a Baraitha to the same effect. 

Examples: Berachoth 9b; Taanith 10a; Sanhedrin 23a. 

Remark. The question : "Why does the Amora need to teach 
that which is already stated in the Baraitha ?" is never raised, since 
the Amora was expected to know every Mishna, but not every Ba- 
raitha. 

5. Corroborating the Memra by one of another Authority. 

§10. 

Sometimes one Memra is corroborated by another one 
which is introduced by ...'•DJ ^DHS we have also another Mem- 
ra to the same effect. Such is especially the case where the 
Memra of a Babylonian Amora is supported by one of a Pa- 
lestinian authority. 

Examples: Chagiga 24a; Gittin 13b; Sanhedrin 29a. 
6. A Different Report. 
§U- 

Alter a Memra has been treated in the above stated ways, 
a different report fnDfcn fcO'W some say, some report. . . . ) is some- 
times introduced in which the Amora referred to just expresses 
the opposite opinion. The discussion then turns the tables, so 



230 Terminology and Methodology. 

that every objection which was made to the former report, be- 
comes now a support, and every former support an objection. 
Examples: Berachoth 10b; Betza 13a; Maccoth 3b. 
7. Correcting the Memra. 
§72. 

Strong objections having been raised against a Memra, it 
is sometimes re-established in a rectified form by the phrase: 

..."IDfiK WlDriN •>« N^K but if such Memra was report- 
ed, it must have been reported in the following way.... 

Examples: Berachoth 15b; Yoma 28a; Kiddushin lib. 



CHAPTER VIII. 

TREATMENT OF A MEMRA CONTAINING A DIFFER- 
ENCE OF OPINION. 

1. The Difference concerning the Correct Reading of a 

Mishna Paragraph. 

§ 73. 

Each of the contesting teachers argues for the correctness 
of his way of reading; the argument being based either on the 
context of the Mishna under consideration, or on a common 
sense reason. The question is then finally settled by referring 
to another Mishna or to a Baraitha in support of one of the 
two ways of reading. 

Examples: B. Kamma 37a; B. Metzia 80a; Shebuoth 16a. 

Remark. Sometimes, both ways of reading are declared to be 
admissible by the phrase: tJQntJ>» tib ....Wl |NK» .Bttn^lO &6....W1 1KB- 

"He who reads the Mishna in this way is not wrong, and he wh« 
reads it in the other way is neither wrong, for..." 

Examples: Succah 50b; Yebamoth 17a; Aboda Zara 2a. 

2. The Difference concerning the Explanation of a Term 

or Passage in the Mishna. 

The supposed arguments for and against each of the differ- 
ent explanations are investigated in the following way: 

Question 1: '3 i »j6b3 IDS $b ID"D 'K "q$B Why does the 
Amora A not explain as Amora B? 

Answer: ....^ IDS he might say... (I have the following 
objection to his explanation..) 

Question 2: ?-|TKT and the other (teacher B) ? i. e., 
how will be he remove this objection? 



232 Terminology and Methodology. 

The answer having been given, question 1 is again direct- 
ed to B: why does he not explain as A? This question is then 
treated in a similar way as the former. 

Examples: Gittin 17a; B. Kamma 22a; Sanhedrin 25a. 

3. The Difference concerning the Reason of a Law. 

§ ?5. 

The practical consequence of adopting either of the two 
reasons assigned to the law by the contesting Amoraim is in- 
vestigated by asking: 

WW* *KD what is the difference between them? i. e., in 
what respect does it make a difference in the application of the 
law, whether this or the other reason be assigned to it? 

The answer is always introduced by the phrase : KD^N 
...WW3 there is (it makes) a difference concerning.... 

Examples: Gittin 2b; B. Metzia 15b; Sanhedrin 24b. 

4. Investigating the Principle underlying the Difference 

of Opinion. 
§76. 

Where the difference between the contesting Amoraim in- 
volves a principle of law, that principle is investigated by the 
question : vi^Dp "»SD3 in what do they differ? Or, What is 
the point of difference ? On what general principle do they 
disagree ? 

Examples: Pesachim 63b; Gittin 34a; B. Metzia 15b. 

Remark. Before defining the difference, sometimes the points 
are stated in which both sides agree, and which therefore are exclud- 
ed from the discussion. This is usually done in the following phrase: 
....O^D ^ T^B *6 (Nc6y , i*D)....IWl 5o As regards.... they (both of 
the contesting teachers) do not disagree, but they differ concerning.... 

Examples: Yoma 6b; Pesachim 30b; B. Metzia 2 lb. 

5. Showing Consistency of Opinions in both of the 
Contesting Teachers. 

§ M. 
After having stated the difference, the Gemara shows that 



Memra containing a difference of opinion 233 

the divergence of opinions in this case is in full accordance 
with the opposite views or principles expressed elsewhere by 
the same teachers. The phrases used in showing such consist- 
ency of opinion in both of the contesting Amoraim are : 

a. irVDJJtD^ HTKT they go according to their principles, 
i. e., they differ, each following his own principle. 

Examples: Sabbath 34b; Pesachim 29a, Shebuoth 15b. 

b rrtoyttft '2 ^si rvnytob '$ wbs Amora a follows 

his principle, and also Amora B follows his principle. . . . 
Examples: Pesachim 29b; Gittin 24b; B. Kamma 53a. 

Remark. The phrase IJVQyDb TITfcO is used where reference is 
made to another dispute between the same teachers, while rpftyft;* '2 
refers to a principle laid down by either of the two teachers independ" 
ently from each other. 

6. Discussing the Difference of Opinion. 

§ 78. , 

By the introductory phrase: yo&> sn (abbr. ty'Tl) Come 
and hear, or: rPSWK or: ^WD a certain teacher ox: they (the 
members of the academy) objected (by appealing to a higher au- 
thority), a Mishna or a Baraitha is referred to in suport 
(JJVD or KnjTD^f the opinion of one, and as a refutation (Kn2Vn) 
of that of the other of the contesting Amoraim. A discussion 
then usually follows with the object of rejecting the support 
or repelling the attack. The result of that discussion is ei- 
ther that the question at issue remains undecided, or it is decided 
against one and in favor of the other of the contesting Amoraim. 
The usual phrase in the latter case is: 

(.'2 \r6sn wms sn:6m) ! snnw ? 'k *yhm «nnvn "is 

this not a refutation of the opinion of Amora A? It is a refu- 
tation! And the decision is according to the opinion of Amora B. " 
Examples : Sanhedrin 27a; B. Metzia 21b-22b; Chullin 
28a. Examples of not distinctly decided discussions: Pesachim 
30b-31b; B. Kamma 56b-57b; B. Metzia 38b. 



234 Terminology and Methodology. 

Remark. Commenting on a Mishna- paragraph which has some 
bearing on a well known difference of opinion between Amoraim, the 
Gemara sometimes starts with the question, whether, or not this Mishna 
offers an argument in favor of, or against, the opinion of one of these 
Amoraim. The phrases used in such an investigation are: 

a. ...'Q^ n^ y"D)D KD^ is it to say, that this Mishna supports the 
Amora A? 

Examples: Succah 15b; Betza 11a; B. Kamma 62b. 

b T WOVn ^nn NIO^ is it to say, that this Mishna is a refuta- 
tion of Amora B? 

Examples: Sabbath 9b; Succah 15a; Yoma 19a. 

7. Tracing back the Difference between Amoraim to one 
between tanaim. 

§79. 

After having treated a Memra in accordance with the above 
stated methods, the Gemara often attempts to show that the 
same difference of opinion between the two Amoraim is already 
found among two Tanaim. For this purpose a Mishna or a 
Baraitha is quoted containing a difference between Tanaim 
concerning a subject which has some bearing upon the differ- 
ence under consideration. The point of discussion becomes 
now whether or not the principle underlying the difference be- 
tween those two Tanaim is identical with that under considera- 
tion, so that Amora A agrees with Tana A, and Amora B with 
Tana B. The phrases introducing this investigation are: 

a. WHS KD*6 (or, KD'O) is it to say, that this difference 
is like that between Tanaim? 

Examples: Pesachim 31a; Git tin 14b; Sanhedrin 27a. 

b. ^b^tp ('2VK D*Wn) ...1 «na^B2 Xtfb is it to say, 
that these Amoraim differ according to the difference of opinion 
between those Tanaim A and B? 

Examples: Shebuoth 25a; Maccoth lib; Nedarin 5b. 



Memra Containing a Difference of Opinion. 235 

Remark. Like other investigations of the Gemara introduced by 
KD'b or KD'Jj also this attempt leads generally to a negative result, as 
it is finally shown that the principle implied in the difference between 
the Tanaim does not at all concern the case under consideration. But 
where after a discussion between Amoraim the Gemara simply states: 
^NJriD "this is like the difference between Tanaim", or fc^n ^JOn "this 
difference is identical with that of the Tanaim", (f. i. Berachoth 22a; 
R. Hashana 15a; B. Metzia54a) that statement is generally not disputed. 

8. Supporting Each of two Contesting Teachers by a 
Baraitha. 

§ 80. 

Two anonymous Baraithoth are referred to, one of which 
agrees with the opinion of one, and the other with that of the 
other of the contesting Amoraim. The phrase used in this case is, 

'2 "♦T^B"! rPnVD «^n 'N ^Bl nWD tOtfl there is a Ba- 
raitha agreeing with the opinion of Amora A, and a Baraitha 
agreeing with the opinion of Amora B. 

Examples: Yoma 4a; Betza 6a; Gittin 18a. 

9. Ascertaining the Authorship of two Opposite 
Opinions. 

§81. 

There are Memras reporting that, concerning a certain 
question, two Amoraim A and B differed from each other, one 
holding one, and the other tht 1 - opposite opinion, without clear- 
ly stating which is which, that is, who of the contesting Amo- 
raim holds the one, and who the other opinion, as: 

...nDK TrT|...nDK "in '2 "U^SI '« ^B ..."1DHS it is reported, 
that concerning.... the Amora A and Amora B expressed differ- 
ent opinions, one holding. . . . and the other. . . 

In treating such a Memra, the Gemara usually tries to find 



236 Terminology and Methodology. 

out the representative of each opinion by referring to another 
case in which one of these two teachers expressed a certain 
view which coincides with one of the two opinions under con- 
sideration. 

Such an investigation is always introduced by the phrase: 
...nEK"T Sin ■'J'l^ST Q^non it maybe ascertained that it is the 
Amora A who holds. ... If the argument is accepted, this is in- 
dicated by the closing term D^HDH it is correctly ascertained. 
or D"ty, hear it from this. 

Examples: Berachoth 45a; Megillah 27a; B. Kamma 29b. 



CHAPTER IX. 

D. ASKING AND ANSWERING QUESTIONS. 

Classification of Questions. 

§ 82. 

According to their different nature, the questions asked 
in the Talmudic discussions may be divided into the following 
classes: 

1. Questions of investigation. 

2. Questions of astonishment. 

3. Questions of objection. 

4. Questions of problem. 

Remark. The Talmud, besides, often makes use of the rhetoric 
interrogation, that is, that figure of speech which puts in the form.of a 
negative question what is meant to be strongly affirmative, and in the 
form of a positive question what is meant to be a decided negation, as: 
1K^ fc^N is it then not — ? = it is certainly so. 

pD tib *D are we not taught in the Mishna ? = we are certainly 
taught so. 

"Ofl "lOX '•ID did he say so ? = he cannot have said so. 

fTDD 'D do you think..? = you can impossibly think so. 

1. Questions of Investigation. 

§ 83. 

As already stated above (§ 16.), the Talmud mostly in- 
troduces its explanations and investigations by a query, the 
object of which is to call attention to the point which requires 
elucidation, as i«e what is the meaning of....? KDptt i^b what 
is the reason....? ]^D whence do we have this? 

Such questions are generally asked anonymously, while the 
answer is mostly given in the name of a certain teacher, '£ iDtt 
the teacher.... said (in answer to this question)... 

Remark. To investigate a subject by questioning is sometimes 



238 Terminology and Methodology 

termed 'fi rD 'Ifl a certain teacher asked investigatingly concerning 
this matter (B. Kamma 7a; Kethuboth 58b; Nedarin 38b); rQ p'ttn 
we asked investigatingly concerning it (Berachoth 45b; Sabbath 6b; 
Gittin 4b and frequently). This latter phrase is especially used where 
reference is made to investigating questions asked in another passage 
of the Talmud. Also the noun of this verb *in is occasionally used, 
as ^NIEfc^ yn nVin the investigating questions of Rab and Samuel 
(Berachoth 20a) K3"H "3&n J1V1H (Succah 28a; B. Bathra 134a). 

2. Questions of Astonishment. 

§ 84. 

A question of astonishment, termed nrPEJ"), expresses wond- 
er and surprise at an unexpected statement or argument just 
heard; as: •tfitf is this so? $b*l is this not the case? "|Hjn tipbo 
does this enter thy mind? i. e., do you really mean to say this ? 
N*QDm how can you understand (explain) it in this way? 
"WD ''Kn what is this! how can you say this? 

Such a question does in general not expect an answer, 
though the latter mostly follows the question. 

To this kind of questions belongs also the counter-question 
in which a question asking for information, instead of being 
answered, is repeated with surprise, as if to say, how can you 
ask such a strange question, as: !]^D ? ]blfi (Megilla 2a ; 
Sanhedrin 68b), Ijiije ?pjfc (Chullin 42b.). 

Remark. A peculiar phrase expressing a question of astonish- 
ment is : nb ^Np ^D r6 1- lNpT» he who asks (or objects) this, what 
does he ask (object) here ? i. e., why ask a question where the 
answer is obvious enough ? or, why raise an objection so easily re- 
moved? Yoma 30b: Yebamoth 11a; B. Bathra 2b. » 



According to a tradition mentioned by Joshua b. Joseph Halevi 
(Halichoth Olam p. 9a; compare Frankel, Monatsschrift 1861, p. 267), 
all passages of the Talmud introduced by this peculiar phrase of 
question belong to the additions made by the Saburaim. 



Asking and Answering Questions 239 

3. Questions op Objection. 

§ 85 - 

These are questions in which a point of difficulty, disagree- 
ment, incongruity or contradiction is raised against a state- 
ment, construction or argument. The Gemara uses different 
terms for such questions: 

The general term for a question of this kind is JWip a 
difficulty, also used as a verb •'typtf to ask an objecting question, 
to raise a point of objection, to show a difficulty. The question 
is mostly introduced by the interjection: Nni but lo! which is 
often prefixed to the following word, as pnm but lo ! are 
we not taught in the Mishna...? fcOjnrf) is it not taught in 
the Baraitha. .. ? "iDfiKm was it not said by an Amora.... ? 
mDNm but did you not say....? 

The answer to such a question is termed pTfi a re- 
conciliation, a satisfactory answer, and is usually introduced by 
the phrase: fcPttfp *$h tnere is no difficulty. Where rib satis- 
factory answer can be found, it is indicated by the closing term 
fcOttfp the difficulty remains, the point of objection is well taken, 
f. ex. Moed Katon 22b, Maccoth 5b. 

Remark 1. When two different questions are raised at the same 
time, the second is introduced by lm and again... (I further ask...); 
f . ex. Berachoth 2a. 

Where the same question is answered by the Gemara in two dif- 
ferent ways, the second answer is introduced by: n^k rp]QW and if 
you wish, you may say....; f. ex. Berachoth 3a. In this case the se- 
cond answer has generally more force than the former. Sometimes, 
however, both answers are introduced by this phrase, as ...tfD^N rPJJTK 
...KD'K TVyTNl you may either answer.... or you may answer...; f. ex. 
Berachoth 4b. In this case both answers are of equal force. 

The same question is often answered by two or more teachers, by 
each in a different way. In this case, the former teacher is introduced 
by 'B "HON/ and each of the following by "DDK 'a; f. ex., Sanhedrin 32 
a. b, where four teachers belonging to different generations (R. Cha- 
nina, Rabba, Rab Papa and Rab Ashe) offer different answers to the 



240 Terminology and Methodology. 

same question. Great ingenuity is in this respect displayed by some of 
the teachers, especially by the rivaling contemporaries Abaye and 
Raba, in showing that a question already answered by the other tea- 
cher might also have been answered in a different way; f. ex., Pesa- 
chim 5b; Kiddushin 5a; B. Metzia 52a. 

Remark 2. The answer to a question or an objection is often re- 
futed, and a new answer is then offered either by the refuter, or by 
another. In this case, the new answer is generally introduced by x;>K 
'3 "1DK> the word JON but indicating that the point of refutation 
against the former answer was well taken. Examples: Berachoth 30b; 
Pesachim 9b; B. Metzia 31a. 

Where of two answers given, the latter is refuted, the accept- 
ance of the former is indicated either the phrase: by OvB2 NrrMnC tfi?K 
but more correct is the answer of the first teacher (f. ex. Taanith 4b; 
Chullin 117a], or in case that answer had been given anonymously, by 
the phrase mpTO }rJBH3 KniWIB *6n more correct is as we answered 
at first (f. ex. Pesachim 17b; Maccoth 2b; B. Metzia 3a). 

Remark 3. In questions of investigation as well as of objection, 
the questioner sometimes anticipates an answer which he shows to be 
inadmissible. Such anticipation (termed in rhetoric prolepsis) in 
questions of investigation is introduced by:... ND^N is it to say...? f. 
ex. Berachoth 9b; Kiddushin 29a; Gittin 9a. In questions of objec- 
tion it is introduced by:...KO">n Ol and if you will say ( answer)..., f. ex. 
Sanhedrin 6a; Kiddushin 3b; Gittin 3b. On the other hand, where in 
giving an answer or explanation, an objection is anticipated which is 
to be removed, it is introduced by 1DND D$0 (abbr. n "Nl) but if you 
will say (object).... f. ex. Succah 16b ; Gittin lib; B. Metzia 10a : 

i;jwD n"so. 

Some Special Kinds of Objection. 

§ 86. 

The terms fcODTl and NniTPn are but species of the general 
term fcWip a question of objection. 

a. Where the objection consists in raising a point of con- 
tradiction between two statements of equal authority, as 
between two passages of Scriptures or between passages of the 



Asking and Answering Questions. 241 

Mishna and the Baraitha, it is termed frODVl (of the verb iD"l 
to cast, to throw against, to bring in opposition) setting 
authority against authority, bringing authorities in opposition 
to each other. Such a question of objection or contradiction 
is generally introduced by the phrase : ... , 'D"i Klb& a certain 
teacher asked the following question of contradiction between 
two passages....; or by : ...^ri^EYI I raise against this the ques- 
tion of a conflict of authorities, i. e., I find this Mishna to be 
in conflict with the following passage in an other Mishna or in 
a Baraitha.... Omitting this introductory phrase, such a 
question is oftenset forth simply by : ...pnm but are we not 
taught in (another) Mishna...? fcOJHm are we not taught in 
a Braitha...? (See above § 49) 

b. WOTTl (the Aramaic form of the Hebrew word n^Il^fi 
an answer, gainsaying, objection, refutation) signifies an ob- 
jection raised against an Amora as being in conflict with the 
superior authority of a statement in a Mishna or Baraitha, It 
is generally introduced by ijl^s 2TID a certain teacher raised 
the following objection from a higher authority...; or rVOTPK 
he objected to him from a higher authority ; or : "OWD they 
(the teachers of the Academy) raised the following objection 
(See above §67) 

The answer to such a point of objection is termed joi^ty 
a difference or distinction , in as much as it mostly attempts to 
remove the contradiction by showing that the two statements, 
seemingly in conflict with each other, actually refer to different 
cases or circumstances. The answer is generally introduced 
by: ...SDH ^Nt^ here is' a different case, or by : ....Dfifl ....jfcO 
here... there..., or ....«n .-..Sn in this case..., but in the other 
case...., or by: ....jrpDJJ itfDI N3H here we treat of the 
special case that 

Remark 1. These distinctions for the purpose of removing a 
contradiction are often very strained, and are in this case sometimes 
characterized by the Talmud itself as tfp^rn Wirt? a forced or 
strained answer, f. ex. : B. Kamma 43a. ; 106a. ; Kethuboth 42b. 



242 Terminology and Methodology. 

Remark 2. The answer to an objection is also termed NpTVD (from 
P")Q to redeem, to rescue, to unload ; hence, to free one from the burden 
of an objection) ; as "3&H KpWB B. Kamma 14a. More frequently 
used is the verb, as rb plDD Kim nb a'ffllD *OH he asked a question 
of objection, and he answered it, Kiddushin 44b; Gittin 53a. B. Kamma 
43b. ; or r6 nrp"IQ»1 ^ ^pD he asked me questions of objection, 
and I answered them, B. Metzia 84a. 

The Dilemma. 

§ 87 

Objections are sometimes set forth in the form of a dilem- 
ma (termed "J^SJ HDD), presenting two or more alternatives 
of a case or an opinion, and showing it to be equally objection- 
able whichever alternative we may choose, as : 

a. (K^p) ...W (*OPp) ..•*•« "|^SJ HD what is thy wish? 
i. e., which alternative do you choose ? //.... (then my objection 
is : ) and if. . . . (then my objection is :....). ' 

Examples : Sabbath 46a ; B. Kamma 38a ; Chullin 12a. 

b. (tf»ffp) ....W (KWp) ....*« W Wl how shall we 
imagine this case ? //.... (then my objection is....) and if.... 
(then I have to object....). 

Examples : Kethuboth 72a ; B. Metzia 21a ; B. Bathra 78b. 

c *N1 .../N U^pDJJ *H02 °f what circumstance do we 

treat here ? */.... (objection), and if.... (objection). 
Examples: Sabbath 30a, Gittin 37b, B. Metzia 12b. 

d itfl ..,/»K "ODD 'WD what is his opinion ? If he 

holds that.... (then I object....), and if he holds.... (I also 
object....). 

Examples: Berachoth 3a; Sanhedrin 2b; Kiddushin 6b. 
The answer to a dilemma either shows a middle ground between 
the two alternatives, or defends one of the alternatives against 
the objection made to it. In the first case, it is introduced by 



1 The phrase of *|£>SJ HID is also used in introducing an argument 
in defense, proving that a decision or opinion is equally correct which- 
ever of the two alternatives we may choose. Examples: Betza 10b. 
Gittin 43b; B. Metzia 6b. 



Asking and Answering Questions. 243 

the phrase . ."r &CHX S 2 ? it is not necessary so (namely to 
choose just one of the presented alternatives), for.... (a third al- 
ternative is imaginable to which none of your objections ap- 
plies). In the second case, the answer is generally introduced 
by the word Q^iy^ which in this connection stands for D^iy^ 
1^ ND'W still I maintain (one of the alternatives with some mo- 
difications). 

Rejoinder. 



Where the answer to an objection or to a refutation is 
found to be insufficient, the weak points thereof are set forth 
in a rejoinder. The phrases mostly used in such a rejoinder are: 

a DID DID (literally: the end of the end...) anyhow t at 

all events, that is, however extreme my concession to the suppo- 
sition of your answer may be, my former objection still remains... 

Examples: Megilla 3a; Gittin 24a; B. Metzia 16a. 

b. Where the rejoinder goes to demonstrate that the 
answer does not cover all cases the following phrase is used: 

nD^ WK •»«&..•.. 3 .....3 rttTl you may be right... (i. e., 
your defense is acceptable concerning one case), but concer- 
ning... (that other case of....) what have you to say? 

Examples: Pesachim 11a; Gittin 4b; B. Metzia 3a. 

c. Where the answer is found to be based only on a dis- 
puted principle, tbe rejoinder is phrased; 

no^ Ka^ ""No ..-"io«-r \mb n*?k ...loan ]«»V«n^n 

That is all right according to him who holds..., but accord- 
ing to him who holds.... (the opposite opinion), what is there to 
say? Examples: Berachoth 12a; Yoma 3a; Sanhedrin 3a. 

4. Questions of Problems. 

§ 89. 

Problem is a question proposed for solution concerning a 
matter difficult of settlement. The pages of the Talmud are 
full of such questions. The doubt involved in those questions 
concern there either the correct reading, or the proper con- 



244 Terminology and Methodology 

struction and meaning of the Mishna, or the decision of a case 
not provided for in the Mishna. 

Such questions are termed r\V$2 problems, questions of 
doubt, and are generally introduced by iyfy& ^2 a certain tea- 
cher asked the following difficult question, he propounded a 
problem for solution, or ^£D *yfy& ^Z A asked B to solve 
the following question ; or when such a question was asked 
anonymously in a school, it is introduced by: "\rfy K s y^tf the 
following problem was proposed by them (i. e. by the members 
of the academy). 

The point of the question is generally followed by the 
interrogative iriD how is it ? The two sides of the question 
are usually set forth by : ....ND^H IN ....jFIDK "'D shall 

we say.... or perhaps Sometimes, however, the phrase 

p*HDK "'D is omitted, and must be supplied. 

Examples of problems : 1. Concerning the proper 
reading or construction of the Mishna: Sabbath 36b ; 
Yoma 41b ; B. Kamma 19a. 

2 Concerning the source or reason of a law : 
Taanith 2b; Aboda Zara 6a; Gittin 45a. 

3 Concerning cases not provided for in the Mishna : 
Sabbath 3a Pesachim 4b Kiddushin 7b; B. Bathra 5b. 

Remark. Where the propounded problem appears to be merely 
theoretical, the practical consequence of its solution is investigated 
by the query : rWD NpQJ "WD^ for what case will it be of 
consequence ? Examples : Pesachim 4a; B. Kamma 24a; Gittin 36b. 

Solution of the Problem. 

.§ 90 

The solution of a problem (the verb is ftt^S) is 
introduced by the phrase yet? tfr (abbr. tP'Tl) come and 
hear. When rejected, another solution introduced by the same 
phrase is generally attempted. The final acceptance of a 
solution is indicated by the closing phrase nTD j?Dty hear 
it therefrom, i. e., this settles the question, this is the 
correct solution. 



Asking and Answering Questions 245 

Where no solution is found, it is indicated by the term 
Ipijl (=mp^n) it stands, i. e., the question remains unsolved. 

Where the questioner himself finds a solution, the phrase 
is : niDt^S Tin ^JOT iri2 after having propounded this 
question, he again solved it. Examples : Sabbath 4b; Kid- 
dushin 9b; Sanhedrin 10a. 

If out of several problems only one can be solved, the 
solution is introduced by the phrase Kin NriD tDWS you 
may solve, at least, one of them : f. ex. B. Metzia 25a; 
Gittin 44a. 

A Series of Problems Linked together. 

§ 91 

Sometimes, a series of problems concerning imaginary 
cases of a certain law are set forth by a teacher, and so 
arranged that if one of them be solved, the following one 
would still remain doubtful. Each problem, except the first 
one, is then generally introduced by the phrase... nD"6 N¥Dn DS1 
and if you should be able to say.... (to solve it in one way) 
1 still ask... (the following case). 

Examples : Pesachim 10b; Kiddushin 7b; Kethuboth 2a; 
B. Metzia 21a; 24a. 

Remark. Some of the Babylonian teachers, especially Raba, R. 
Jirmiah, Rab Papa, were noted for having indulged in propounding 
such problems concerning imaginary cases in order to display their 
ingenuity. R. Jirmiah was at a certain occasion even expelled from the 
academy for having troubled his colleagues by his imaginary and trif- 
ling problems (B. Bathra 23b). Of Raba and some other teachers it is 
expressly stated that they occasionally propounded such problems, 
merely for the purpose of examining the ability and acuteness of their 
pupils; Erubin 51a; Menachoth 91b; Chullin 133a. 

Questions laid before higher Authorities r Decision. 

§92. 
Different from the questions of problem just spoken of are 



246 Terminology and Methodology. 

those questions which were directed to a higher authority, 
either to a celebrated teacher or to an academy, especially of 
Palestine, to consider and decide upon a difficulty or a dis- 
pute. Such questions are usually introduced by the phrase : 
....1321 lttb^ 1 ^S^ rrt ir6ty they sent to a certain teacher 

(asking,): may our teacher instruct us concerning The 

answer is then introduced by : ....ir6 T\b\ff lie sent to them 
(the answer).... 

Examples : Sanhedrin 8a; B. Kamma 27b; Gittin 66b. 

Remark. Also the phrase DHD N"6k> they sent from there (i. e. 
from Palestine to Babylon) means, they sent an answer to a question 
directed to them; f. ex., Betza 4b; Gittin 20a; Sanhedrin 17b. 



CHAPTER X. 

E. ARGUMENTATION. 

1. Terms and Phrases Introducing an Argument. 
§ 93 

An argument, that is. the reason offered to prove or dis- 
prove any matter of question, is termed D^tt (the reason). 

In the Talmudic discussion, arguments are mostly intro- 
duced by one of the following phrases : 

a. KE yts *»WD what is the reason? Berachoth 3b, a. elsewhere. 

b. jJDtP KH come and hear, i. e., you may derive it from; 
the following. . . ; Berachoth 2b, a. elsewhere. 

c jnn you may know (infer) it from the following. Berachoth 
15a; B. Metzia 5b, a. elsewhere. 

d. nb WEK fcOD whence do I maintain this ? on what do I 
base my opinion ? Berachoth 25a; Sabbath lib, a. elsewhere. 

e. tfnDVl NJD1 and whence may you say (prove) that....? 
Sabbath 23a; B. Metzia 11a. 

f. pS ^Tnj let us see (into the subject), let us argue on the 
subject. Berachoth 2Ta; B. Kamma51b; B. Metzia 8b. 

g. K*UfiDD it is reasonable, it is in accordance with com- 
mon sense. Berachoth 2b; Sabbath 25a; Kiddushin 5a. 

h. K^2fiDD ^Di 'OH so it is also reasonable; this may be 
proved by the following reasoning. Yoma 16a; B. Kamma 26a; 
B. Metzia 10a. 

i. ""D3 Kp"H it is also proved by a conclusion. Berachoth 
26a, a. elsewhere. 

The last mentioned phrase is especially used where the 
argument is based on a conclusion drawn from the wording 
of a passage. 



248 Terminology and Methodology. 

2. Classification of Arguments. 
§ 94 
Arguments arc either direct or indirect. In the first case, 
the grounds or reasons are laid down, and the correctness of 
the proposition to be proved is inferred from them. In the 
second case, the thesis is not proved immediately, but by 
showing the falsehood of its contradictory. 

In the Talmud, the arguments mostly used in direct as 
well as indirect reasoning, are the following ; 

a. The argument from common sense. • 

b. Ttie argument from authority. 

c. The argument from construction and implication. 

d. The argument from analogy. 

e. The argument a fortiori. 

a. Argumet from Common Sense. 
§ 95 

A common sense argument is termed K"CD, so in the 
phrases: S1H 8*130 it is a common sense reasoning; Pesachim 
21b; Sanhedrin 15a, B. Metzia 2Tb. K"3K1 K12D KD'W rPJD '•S 
fcOp if you wish, I refer to common sense, and if you wish, 
I refer to a biblical passage; Berachoth 4b, Yebamoth 39b, 
Kiddushin 35 a. 

Common sense reasons are generally introduced by the 
conjunctives: „.,sm for behold..., ....i ^sin because, jro 
....1 since, ...Sbb because, ....! DltPD on account of, "»2sd 
••••t? for..., because.... 

b. Argument from Authority. 

§ 96. 
An argument from authority, termed rW\ the proof, 
the evidence, is that which appeals to the authority ot the 
Bible (snp nDKl tor Scripture says; 5V01 for it is written; 
nDfcOttf for it is said), or to the authority of the Mishna (pm 
for it is taught in the Mishna), or to that of the Baraitha 
(K^nT "VTTl), or to the accepted teaching of an Amora (nDST 



Argumentation. 249 

^1^2), or to an accepted tradition (^TD3 we have learned by 
tradition, Berachoth 28a, Succah 5b; p^ftpj we have received 
it by tradition, Erubin 5a, Gittin 32b, Maccoth 10b), or to 
a settled rule and established principle of law (j^> KD^pH for 
it is established among us, it is a generally accepted opinion 
or maxim, Yebamoth 6a, Gittin 28b; p"HD*n for we generally 
say, hold the opinion, Yebamoth 3b, B. Metzia 25b). 

The Talmud being occupied chiefly with questions of law, 
arguments from authority are there of supreme importance. 

The inference from the cited authority is generally intro- 
duced by KD^N hence, consequently (Pesachim 2a-3a), or by 
^DD in this is implied, from this follows, or by riTD ^DD* 
hear from this, i. e. you may infer herefrom.... 

Remark 1. The phrase rPDD V®& i s a l so used to express the final ap- 
proval of the preceding argument, and is then to be translated by: It 
follows therefrom the argument is accepted; Pesachim 3a a. elsewhere. 
Remark 2. Where the argument from authority is based merely 
on the supposition of a certain interpretation of the quoted passage 
or on a supposed circumstance to which it refers, that supposition 

is introduced by IN^ ''NJD is it not (to be supposed] that....? 

In answering such an argument, the opponent generally denies 
that supposition by ...fc^ it is not so, but... ; f. ex., Pesachim 16b; 
Sanhedrin 24b; B. Kamma 15b. 

c. Argument from a Close Construction of a Passage: 

§ 97. 

This' is an argument which draws conclusions from a 
careful consideration of the words in which a law is framed. 
Such an argument is termed KpVH (from the verb pn to 
examine minutely, to consider a thing carefully), and is most- 
ly introduced by the phrase: ....^npl "»DJ KpH it is also 
proved by a conclusion from the expression used in this Mishna 
or Baraitha. 

Examples: Succah 3a; Kiddushin 3a-; Shebuoth 29b. 
Remark. Hereto belongs also that argument in which conclusions 



250 Terminology and Methodology. 

are drawn from a positive statement to the negative, and vice versa, 
by emphasizing either the subject or the predicate or the modification 
in the clause of a law under consideration. The phrase used in such 
conclusions is either: ....tfn ....*! Nioyo the reason (the force, stress) 
of this law is in the expressly stated case of.... but.... (in the opposite 
case, the decision of the law is the reverse); f. ex., Kiddushin 5b; 
B. Kamma 48b; B. Meztia 25a. Sometimes the phrase is: ^3N, pj*... 
tib... strictly in this case yes, but... (other wise) not; f. ex., Yoma 
85b; B. Metzia 30a; 34a. 

Such arguments resting merely on the emphasis of an expression 
are often very arbitrary and fallacious, and are in this case prompt- 
ly refuted in the Talmud. 

d. Arguments from Analogy. 

§ 98. 

An argument from analogy, termed fcypTi or fcOBH, is that 
which infers from the similarity of two cases that, what has 
been decided in the one, applies also in the other. 

Such arguments are introduced by one of the fol- 
lowing phrases: 

a "r fcODH in similarity with the case of...; Kiddushin 

12a; B. Bathra 28b. 

b tfn*? fr6tf fcWT $b «H this is rather like that other 

case of...; Sabbath 12a; Kiddushin 7a; B. Metzia 30a. 

c *»3i j!"DBWT3 as we find concerning...; Berachoth 20b. 

d tf mm "H^ft something which is found concerning..., 

i. e., just as in the case of...; Sabbath 6a; Kiddushin 4a; 
Gittin 8b. 

Also the phrase: (tf>jn) JJfi Kb '•D are we not taught in the 
Mishna (or Baraitha) ? mostly introduces an argument from 
analogy; Pesachim 7a, 9a; Kiddushin Ta. 

The application of the analogous case to the case under 
consideration is generally introduced by •>&: jon • ••Dnn "WO 
as there... so here, too. 



Argumentation. 251 

* 

e. ARGUMENT a Fortiori, 
§ 99. 

The argument a fortiori, termed iDlffl bp, is a kind of 
argument from analogy, and consists in proving that a thing 
being true in one case is more evidently so in another in which 
the circumstances are more favorable. 

In regard to Biblical interpretation, this argument was 
treated in Part II of this book as the first rule of the Tal- 
mudical Hermeneutics. Its application in the discussions of 
the Gemara is less artificial than there. The phraseology used 
in setting forth this argument is: 

a. wyzn ion ....moa ....nnn (not) sntrn now, (since) 

there... (in that other case of...) you say...., could it here be 
questioned ? 

Examples: Git tin 15b; B. Bathra 4a; Maccoth 6b. 

b. p» to $b *On ....nnn HD1 WWl now, if there...., 
how much the more (or the less) here. 

Examples: Yoma 2b; B. Metzia 2b; Yebamoth 32a. 
Remark. In the Agadic passages of the Talmud, the final con- 
clusion of such an argument is generally expressed by ,1D3 JiriK bv 
nD3l; f. ex. Gittin 35a; Nedarim 10b; Maccoth 24a. 

3. Indirect Argumentation. 
§ 100. 

The mode of proceeding in indirect argumentation is to 
assume the denial of the point in question or a hypothesis 
which is the contradictory of the proposition to be proved, and 
then to show that such a denial or hypothesis involves some 
false principle, or leads to consequences that are manifestly ab- 
surd. The assumed contradictory thus shown to be false, the 
original proposition must consequently be true. 

This method is very frequently applied in the Talmudic 
discussion. The phrases used in indirect argumentation are: 

a. (fcWp).... , On NBVl $b W for if you do not say so (i. e. 
if you deny my proposition), the difficulty or the objection is.... 



252 Terminology and Methodology. 

Examples: Berachoth 26b; Yoma 15a; B. Metzia 5b. 

b. (S , 'trp)....nnD« , '«lforifyou say... (the contrary), then... 
(objection). 

Examples: Berachoth 2b; Yoma 24b; Gittin 35b; B. 
Metzia 28b. 

c. (frOTO).... h ]njn Sp^D "W tor if it should enter your mind, 
(i. e., if you should assume the contrary...), then... (it will 
lead to the following objectionable consequence). 

Examples: Berachoth 13a; Sanhedrin 6a; B. Metzia 5b. 

Indirect arguments are often introduced by the phrase 
K"CHDD it is proved by the following reasoning... or "»C2 "on 
K"QfiDD it may thus also be proved by reasoning 

The conclusion from an indirect argument is generally ex- 
pressed by l$b *6« is it then not...? or rWO ^DP 1$b fc^K 
is it then not to be concluded herefrom... (the correctness of 
the proposition which was to be proved)? In direct arguments, 
the phrase is simply: rWD JJDttf. 

Remark. Arguments introduced by JO^riDD 'DJ \3n or by tfp'H 
>ftj are generally regarded conclusive. As to the exceptions, see To- 
saphoth Yoma 84a, s. v. D"jn and Tosaphoth Sebachim 13a and 
Chullin67b, s. v. ifcj KpH. 

4. Direct and Indirect Arguments Combined. 

§ 101. 

To support a proposition against the contrary view of an 
opponent, the Talmud often uses a combination of direct and 
indirect arguments, by referring to an authority, and showing- 
it to be in harmony with the proposition and in disharmony 
with the contradictory. The phrases used in such argument- 
ations are: 

a. (TBff) ....«D^2 m»K ^ (=mBK ^ NDtoa) 

(8^p) mDK \S N^K 

it is well, if you say... (if you accept my proposition), then every 
thing is all right; but if you say... (the contradictory), then... 
(you meet some difficulty). 



Argumentation. 253 

Examples: Berachoth 26b; Sabbath 23a; B. Metzia 3a. 

b. (Wil or) ^Sty H'H^ 8D^3 

it is well according to my view....; but according to your 
view... (there is a difficulty). 

Examples: Yoma 4a; Pesachim 46b; Moed Katon 2b. 

c. CBv»n) Tsty ....no*n jsd^ Kotea 

*wp ....ni2«-? }$vb «^ 

it is well according to him who holds. . . . ; but according to him 
who holds.... (the contrary view).... (there is the difficulty). 
Examples: Berachoth 41a; Yoma 40a; B. Kamma 22a. 



CHAPTER XL 

REFUTATION. 

Definition and Terms. 
§ 102. 

A refutation consists either in proving that a given pro- 
position is false, or in overthrowing the arguments by which 
it has been supported. In the first case, it is termed : srGT»n 
(the Aramaic word for the Hebrew nai^n an answer, gainsay- 
ing, refutation), and in the second case: K2T5 (from the verb 
■ps to break into pieces, to crumble; hence, to destroy, to in- 
validate), or: nTn (from the verb TH to push aside, to over- 
throw to supersede). 

A. The Refutation of a Proposition. 
§ 103. 

The strongest argument against a proposition advanced 
by an Amora is to show that it conflicts with the authoritative 
decision laid down in a Mishna or a Baraitha. Such a refuta- 
tion is generally introduced by: iT'SlVKj or >^btt 3T1D, or 
12WD; see above § 86b. 

A proposition is refuted indirectly by showing that, assum- 
ing it to be true, a certain passage of a Mishna or Baraitha 
bearing on that subject ought to have been expressed differently 
or could not well be explained. The phrases mostly used in 
such negative argumentation after quoting such a passage are: 

a. (fcOPp) (Prt ■•J^D) mDK W now, if you say., (main- 
tain your proposition), then... (we meet with a difficulty). 

Examples: Grittin 53a; Kiddushin 32a; B. Metzia 10a. 

b. (fcftfp) ..."pjn Kpte W now, if you assume... (your 
proposition to be true), then... 

Examples: Sabbath 7b; Betza 9b; B. Metzia 10b. 

c. (K^p) ...NJVK DK1 now, ifitwereso.. (as you main- 
tain), then.... 

Examples: R. Hashana 3b; Pesachim 25a, Betza 18a. 



Refutation. 255 

Remark. A proposition is also refuted indirectly by proving the 
truth of its contradictory. The confirmation of one of two antagonis- 
tic opinions is thus the virtual refutation of the other, and vice versa. 
Hence the Talmudic phrases : (2) *jfel KnaPffl (K) ^btb ftb SPDO 
this Mishna is a support (confirmation) of the opinion of A, and a 
refutation of the (opposite) opinion of B ; f . ex, Yebamoth 53a, and: 
(3) *ybzb W*ob (K) 'xbA THD he refuted A in support of B; f. 
ex., Yoma 42b; B. Bathra 45b; Chullin 10a; Zebachim 10a. 

B. Refutation of Arguments. 
§ 104. 

Such refutations are very often introduced by the phrase: 
*jAb nb EppnB a certain teacher asked a strong question 
against this (argument)....; (f. ex., Sabbath 4a; R. Hashana 
13a; Sanhedrin 4a; Maccoth 3a). Occasionally, it is introduced 
by: ...'£ "p"iS a certain teacher refuted this argument (f. ex. 
Kiddushin 13a; Yebamoth 24a; Shebuoth 41b), or...'S H3 Clt^D 
a certain teacher ridiculed this argument, in showing its ab- 
surdity (Sabbath 62b: Kidd. 71b; Sanhedrin 3b; Aboda Zara 
35a; Zebachim 12a). 1 



M The term 5^priO (from S]pn to overpower, to attack; hence, 
to overthrow, to confute an argument,) is mostly used only in re- 
ference to refuting questions asked by the later Amoraim from the 
time of Rabba and Rab Joseph, though in Temura 7a it is exceptionally 
applied to a question raised by Resh Lakish. 

"*1B meaning, literally, to break into pieces, to crumble; hence, 
to invalidate an argument, to refute, is by the earlier Amoraim 
used as a term of refuting especially a Kal vechomer or a Binyan Ab 
(in the phrase -pQD^ fcO*K, and as a noun &OV2). As a term of refu- 
ting any argument it is mostly used by Rab Acha. The Talmud com- 
mentators Rashi and Tosaphoth often use the verb "pa in the general 
sense, to ask a question. 

The term v^yo is mostly used by R. Abuha, and only once by R. 
Jirmija and once by R. Chanina.— Tosaphoth Yebamoth 2b, s. v. B^Q 
calls attention to the circumstance that some of the Amoraim used 
their own peculiar terms in setting forth a question. See KohuVs 
Aruch Completum s. v. ppj. 



256 . Terminology and Methodology. 

The procedure of refuting a particular argument varies 
with the nature of the latter, as will be shown in the following 
paragraphs. 

§ 105. 

1. An argument from common sense (see above § 95) is 
overthrown by showing that good common sense rather sides 
with the opposite view. 

The phrase used in such counter-argument is : rOTTtf 
(also spelled KUTTfcO on the contrary, or more emphatically : 
S"12DDD Kn^N n3"HN on the contrary, the reverse is more 
reasonable. 

Examples: Sabbath 3b; Pesachim 28a; Gittin 23b. 
Remark 1. The term mviN or sms (a contraction of the 
words 7V21 H hV-> literally, on that which is greater or stronger, i. e., 
on the contrary side is a stronger argument) must not be confoun- 
ded with the words rQTlK and JOIIX meaning against the view 
of Rabba or of Raba, in the phrases : m"HK 11211 fcT^p Grittin 27a, 
and K3T1K fcOV? fcTBPp B. Bathra 30a. 

Kemark 2. A similar meaning as the term rQTIK on the contra- 
ry, is expressed by the phrase rPv , S?D> literally: where does this turn? 
i. e., on the contrary, the opposite view is more reasonable; f. ex. Pe- 
sachim 5b; B. Metzia 58b. 

§ 106. 

2. An argument from authority, (see above § 96) is defeat- 
ed in different ways: 

a. By showing that the whole argument is based on a 
misapprehension of the passage referred to. In demonstrating 
this, either of the following phrases is used: 

K*QDrfi how do you reason? How can you understand that 
passage in this way? 

Examples: Pesachim 26a; Yebamoth 15a, B. Kammal4a. 

N^...m2D "'D do you think..., do you understand the pas- 
sage in this way ? It is not so, but.... 

Examples: Pesachim 29a; Kiddushin Ta, B. Metzia 32b. 

b. By showing that the authority referred to does not 



Refutation. 257 

necessarily concern the case under consideration. This is 
phrased either: (ten or) cnn 'tfKty there (or, here) tlie case 
is different, for.... 

Examples: Pesachim 5a; Shebuoth 15a* B. Metzia 10a. 

Or: ...p*»pDJJ \SE2 SSII here we treat of the special case 
of... 

Examples; Gittin 12a; B. Karama 8a; B. Metzia 10b. 

c. By showing that the passage referred to is not autho- 
ritative, as it only expresses the individual opinion of one 
Mishna Teacher, disputed by another authority. 

tf Jfl ^Sn *2 "1EX"t tfin he holds it with that other teacher 
...;f. ex., Maccoth 10b; 12a. 

Or: KTI...\rfts ^E Km whose opinion is here accepted ? 
that of....; f. ex., Sabbath lib; Pesachim 32a; B. Kamma 10a. 

Or: s* 1 " "Wn concerning this matter, the Tanaim differ. 

Examples: R. Hashana 19b; Betza 9a; B. Metzia 62a. 

§107. 

3. An argument from a close construction or from implica- 
tion (see above § 97) is refuted by showing it to be too arbitra- 
ry, as the same construction, if applied to another clause of 
the same passage, would result in a contradiction of the con- 
clusions from the two clauses. 

This refutation is mostly introduced by: (KBPH) KS , 'DKD , *K 
tell me the other clause... (and apply to it the same construc- 
tion).... 

The result of this counter- argument is often added in the 
phrase: 

ni»D yo^D 2 ? *yh KHD fr6tf hence nothing can be proved 
herefrom. 

Examples: Kiddushin 5b; Yebamoth 76b; B. Metzia 26b. 

§108. 

4. . An argument from analogy (see above § 98) is refuted 
by impugning the premise, in showing that the resemblance 



258 Terminology and Methodology. 

between the two cases is merely superficial, or that points of 
difference have been overlooked which vitiate the analogy. 
The phrases used in such refutations are: 

a fcOn....DnrPDl *»D are the two cases alike? there.... 

here.... 

Examples: Sabbath 6a; Kiddushin 7a; Gittin 3a. 

b. ...*On...Drin KntSTI "OH now, is this sol i. e., is this ana- 
logy correct? There!...; but here.... 

Examples: Berachoth 21a; R. Hashana 28a; Kiddushin 7a. 

Remark. The phrase w ^D is used in refuting an analogy which 
was intended to support a proposition, while that of NnKTI '•DH in re- 
futing the analogy on which an objection to a proposition was based. 
In other words, the former phrase is mostly applied in attacking a pro- 
position, and the latter in repelling such an attack. 

c. «n"»KlS «n KrVtfTD «n fc01tf *rPO does this prove any- 
thing? This case as it is, and the other case, as it is ; i. e., V ». 
cases are not as analogous as you presume, since the u. 
stances are quite different. 

Examples: Succah 43b; Gittin 33a; B. Metzia 14b. 

Remark. This phrase is applied especially in refuting an analogy 
based on the parallelism or the juxtaposition of two cases in one and 
the same Mishna paragraph (KE^DI K6J""I). ' 

§109. 

5. An indirect argument (see above § 100) is often refut- 
ed by a counter-argument, showing that a similar objection, as 
had been raised against the contradictory proposition, might 
also be raised against the original proposition. To remove the 
latter objection, a distinction must necessarily be made, but this 
distinction at the same time removes the objection against the 
contradictory proposition, and thus destroys the whole indirect 
argument. 

The phrases used in introducing such a counter-argu- 
ment are: 



Refutation 259 

a. (...'•DJ ^pn) (? Km •»») ..."[OytD^I but according to 
your own opinion... (does it agree with the passage re 
ferred to?) (is there not also an objection to be raised?..) 

Examples: Yoma 8b; Posachim 19b; Betza 8a. 

b. (fcpffp •»»:) (?mDKp-D) ...••«» «f?«*i and what then?., 
(shall it be so as you say? i. e. do you want me to accept 
your proposition?) but also against this the objection is.... 

Examples: Berachoth 27a; Betza 13a; B. Metzia 3a. 

Remark. The words *KD fc^N introducing such a counter-argu- 
ment must not be confounded with the same words in a different 
connection in which they are to be translated by: what then is...? 
what then means? as: IJTIK ^D tf^K "but what means the expres 
sion mitf "(Rosh Hashana 22b), or in the frequent phrase: ^tf£ fcStf 
TOyA "]b JVK ''but what then remains for you to say? (Yoma 8b). 
In Rosh Hashana 13a, we find on the same page the words •»t<)0 N^K 
in three different connections and meanings. 

§ no. 

6. A mode of refutation very frequently applied in the 
Talmudical discussions, consists in showing that the advanced 
argument, if admitted at all, would prove too much, that 
is, it proves, besides the intended conclusion, another which 
is manifestly inadmissible. The characteristic phrases used 
in this mode of invalidating an argument are: 

a. iDJ .*.tV»SK '■DPI "■« if so, even... also, i. e. if that 
argument (or conclusion) were correct, its consequences 
ought also to extend to that other case of... to which, 
however, they do not extend. 

Examples: Berachoth 13a; Pesachim 7b; Betza 8b. 

b. «»D3 ...tV'SS ...K^K '■KO 'OH ^ if so, why just 
teaching... (this case) ? since it ought to apply also to the 
case of. . . 

Examples: Berachoth 16b; Betza 8a; Gittin 10a. 

§ HI. 

7. A similar but more effective mode of overthrowing an 
argument is, to introduce another analogous case where the 



260 Terminology and Methodology. 

application of that argument would lead to a palpable absur- 
dity. 

The phraseology of this kind of refutation is: 
^D3 "OH... nfijJD K^>K but now (according to your argument 
or conclusion), can it apply also to that other case of...? 
Examples: Berachoth 13a; Pesachim 5a; Gittin 23a. 

§112. 

8. Propositions as well as arguments are often refuted by 
the objection that the advanced opinion is without parallel and 
example, and against common senses, or against the establish- 
ed principles in law. 

....1 "»TD fcCK ""D is there anything like this, that...? 
Examples: Yoma 2b; Betza 13b; Sanhedrin 55a. 

§ H3. 

9. A mild and polite mode of refuting an argument is that 
which,instead of a decided objection, merely intimates a certain 
possibility which would invalidate the argument under consider- 
ation. Such refutations are introduced either by KD'WI 

but I might say...; f. ex. Yoma 2b, or, by... KS^Tl but per- 
haps....; f. ex. Sabbath 5a; B. Metzia 8b. 

The answer to such a mild objection or refutation is often: 
"JHjn Kp^D S^ this cannot enter thy mind, i. e., you can impos- 
sibly think so, since...; f. ex., R. Hashana 13a. 



CHAPTER XII. 

THE DEBATE. 

1. Definition and Terms. 
§ H4. 

Besides the minor discussions to be found almost on 
every page of the Talmud , and consisting either of a query, 
an answer, and a rejoinder, or of an argument, an objection, 
and a defense, the Talmud contains also numerous more 
elaborate discussions or debates in which two or more 
teachers holding different opinions on a certain question 
contend with each other in mutual argumentation. Such an 
interchange of arguments between opposing parties is 
termed K"Httl tfbpW (literally, taking up and throwing back, 
namely, arguments). A debate displaying great dialectical 
acumen is termed ^lB^S. These debates generally concern 
either the interpretation and application of a provision of 
the Mishna, or a new principle of law advanced by an Amora. 
2. The Principal Debaters. 
§ H5. 

The debates recorded in the Talmud are generally between 
the associate members of an academy, or between a teacher 
and his prominent disciples. The most noted among them 
are the following: 

R. Jochanan with Resh Lakish. 

Rab Huna with Rab Nachman; also with Rab Shesheth 
and Rab Chisda. 

Rab Nachman with Rab Shesheth; also with Raba. 

Rab Chisda with Rab Schesheth; also with Rab Nach- 
man b. Isaac. 

Rabba with Rab Joseph; also with Raba and with Abaye. 

Raba with Abaye, and both of them also with Rab 
Papa and with Rabina I. 

Abaye with Rab Dime. 



262 Terminology and Methodology. 

Rab Ashe with Araemar, also with Rabina, with Mar Zutra 
and Rab Acha. 

Of most of the other numerous Amoraim only opinions, 
remarks, traditions and occasional discussions, but no formal 
debates are recorded in the Talmud. 

Some contemporary authorities, as Rab and Mar Samuel, 
though widely differing from each other in many legal questions, 
are rarely (f. i., B. Kamma 75a; Aboda Zarah 36a) mentioned 
as having been personally engaged in debates with each other. 
But their differences of opinion are frequently quoted, and 
made a basis of academical discussions between the teachers 
of later generations. 

3. Illustration of Debates. 

§ 116. 

The following synopsis of a debate between Rabba and 
Rab Joseph, the former being seconded by Abaye, may serve 
to illustrate the usual procedure in the Talmudical controver- 
sies. 

In Baba Kamma 56b the question is as to the degree of 
legal responsibility of nTOK 1D1P, that is, of the keeper of a 
lost object waiting for its owner to claim it. 

Rabba maintains that the responsibility of that kee per is 
only that of a gratuitous depositary (Din IQIttO who is not 
liable for the loss of the object entrusted to his care, except in 
the case of gross negligence. 

Rab Joseph holds that he has the greater responsibility of 
a paid depositary (TOttf "ID1&*) who is liable for all losses ex- 
cept those caused by inevitable accident. 

The reasons for each of these two opinions are stated. 

Rab Joseph opens the debate with the attempt to refute 
the opinion of his opponent (nr"A C]DV nn JYOrPN) by showing 
it to be in conflict with a passage in the Mishna. 

Rabba parries this attack by construing that Mishna pas- 
sage differently. 



The Debate. 263 

R. J. objects to this construction. 

Rabba removes the objection. 

R. J. renews his attack by appealing to a Baraitha from 
which he infers that the keeper of a lost object has the greater 
responsibility of a paid depositary. 

Rabba admits the correctness of this inference in the special 
case mentioned in that Baraitha, but denies its general applica- 
tion to the question at issue. 

After having thus far been successful on the defensive, 
Rabba assumes the offensive (DDT 1 2lb r\Z"\ JTIfVN), by calling 
attention to another Baraitha which he dialectically interprets 
in such a way as to be a refutation of his opponent's opinion. 

R. J. overthrows the refutation by showing that there was 
no necessity for construing this Baraitha just in the way as 
done by his opponent. 

Now, Abaye, a disciple of Rabba, enters the arena to sec- 
ond the opinion of his master. Addressing himself to the op- 
ponent of the latter, he quotes a reported decision of the 
acknowledged authority of one of the former Amoraim in Pales- 
tine (R.Jochanan) from which decision he, by indirect reasoning, 
draws the conclusion that the keeper of a lost object has only 
the responsibility of a gratuitous depositary. 

Rab Joseph rejects this conclusion by restricting the deci- 
sion of the quoted authority to certain circumstances which 
alter the case. 

Abaye denies that the case is altered even under the sup- 
posed circumstances, and the discussion continues without 
leading to a definite result. But later authorities decided in 
favor of Rab Joseph's opinion which is adopted in the Rabbi- 
nical codes. 

Other examples of such debates are furnished : Yoma 
6b — lb ; Pesachim 46b — 47a ; Moed Katon 2b ; Kiddushin 
59a; Gittin 32b— 33a; Nedarim 25b— 27a; B. Kamma 61a— 
62a ; B. Metzia 43a; B. Bathra 45a — 46a. 

Remark. Different from these debates in which two Amoraim 
holding opposite opinions argue personally against each other, are the 



264 Terminology and Methodology 

discussions of the Gemara on a reported difference between authorities 
of a former generation (f. ex. Gittin 2asqq.) in which discussions, ar 
guraents for and against either of those authorities are advanced, 
refuted or defended. See above §§ 74 — 80. 

4. Anonymouus Discussions and Debates. 

§ 11?- 

Dicussions and debates are, as a rule, reported very care- 
fully with the names of those engaged therein. But in nu- 
merous instances, the names are omitted, so that either a 
question or an answer, or both of them are reported anonymously. 
Sometimes, a lengthy discussion carried on anonymously is in- 
terrupted by an answer made by an authority mentioned by 
name. At other times again, a debate started by named 
authorities is continued anonymously. 

The omission of names in a discussion is probably indicative 
that this was a general discussion among the members of the 
academy, while only the questions and answers of the prominent 
teachers were recorded with the names of their authors. 

In consequence of the succinct and elliptical mode ol 
expression, so prevalent in the Talmud, and in the absence ol 
all punctuation marks, the anonymous discussions especially, 
often offer great and perplexing difficulties to the inexperienced 
student, as question and answer are there sometimes so closely 
connected that it requires a considerable practice in Talmud 
reading to discern where the one ends and the other begins. 



PART TV. 



OUTLINES OF TALMUDICAL ETHICS. 



OUTLINES OF TALMUDICAL ETHICS. 

Ethics is the flower and fruit on the tree of religion. 
The ultimate aim of religion is to ennoble man's inner 
and outer life, so that he may love and do that only 
which is right and good. This is a biblical teaching which is 
emphatically repeated in almost every book of Sacred Scrip- 
tures. Let me only refer to the sublime word of the pro- 
phet Micah: "He hath showed thee, man, what is good, 
and what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justice 
and to love kiDdness and to walk humbly with thy God. " 
(Micah vi, 8). 

As far as concerns the Bible, its ethical teachings are 
generally known. Translated into all languages of the world, 
that holy book is accessible to every one, and whoever 
reads it with open eyes and with an unbiased mind will 
admit that it teaches the highest principles of morality, 
principles which have not been surpassed and superseded 
by any ethical system of ancient or modern philosophy. 

But how about the Talmud, that immense literary work 
whose authority was long esteemed second to that of the 
Bible ? What are the . ethical teachings of the Talmud ? 

Although mainly engaged with discussions of the Law, 
as developed on the basis of the Bible during Israel's se- 
cond commonwealth down to the sixth century of the 
Christian era, the Talmud devotes also much attention to 
ethical subjects. Not only are one treatise of the Mishna 
(Pirke Aboth) and some Baraithoth (as, Aboth d'R. Nathan, 
and Derech Eretz) almost exclusively occupied with ethical 
teachings, but such teachings are also very abundantly 
contained in the Aggadic (homiletical) passages which are 
so frequently interspersed in the legal discussions throughout 
all parts of the Talmud. 1 

1 Also the Midrash, a post-Talmudic collection of extracts 
from popular lectures of the ancient teachers on Biblical texts, 
contains an abundance of ethical teachings and maxims advanced 
by the sages of the Talmud, which must likewise be taken into 
consideration, when speaking of Talmudical Ethics. 



268 Outlines of Talmudical Ethics. 

It must be borne in mind that the Talmudical litera- 
ture embraces a period of about eight centuries, and that 
the numerous teachers whose ethical views and utterances 
are recorded in that vast literature, rank differently in re- 
gard to mind and authority. At the side of the great lumi- 
naries, we find also lesser ones. At the side of utterances 
of great, clear-sighted and broad-minded masters with 
lofty ideas, we meet also with utterances of peculiar views 
which never obtained authority. Not every ethical remark 
or opinion quoted in that literature can, therefoie, be re- 
garded as an index of the standard of Talmudical ethics, 
but such opinions only can be so regarded which are 
expressed witn authority and which are in harmony with 
the general spirit that pervades the Talmudic literature. 

Another point to be observed is the circumstance that 
the Talmud does not treat of ethics in a coherent, philo- 
sophical system. The Talmudic sages made no claim of 
being philosophers; they were public teachers, expounders 
of the Law, popular lecturers. As such, they did not care 
for a methodically arranged system. All they wanted was to 
spread among the people ethical teachings in single, concise, 
pithy, pointed sentences, well adapted to impress the minds 
and hearts, or in parables or legends illustrating certain moral 
duties and virtues. And this, their method, fully answered 
its purpose. Their ethical teachings did actually reach the 
Jewish masses, and influenced their conduct of life, while 
among the Greeks, the ethical theories and systems re- 
mained a matter that concerned the philosophers only, 
without exercising any educating influence upon the mas- 
ses at large. 

Furthermore, it must be remembered that the Talmu- 
dical ethics is largely based on the ethics of the Bible. 
The sacred treasure of biblical truth and wisdom was in 
the minds and hearts of the Rabbis. This treasury they 
tried to enrich by their own wisdom and observation. Here 



Outlines of Talmudical Ethics. 269 

they develop a principle contained in a scriptural passage, 
and give it a wider scope and a larger application to 
life's various conditions. There they crystallize great moral 
ideas into a pithy, impressive maxim as guide for human 
conduct. Here they give to a jewel of biblical ethics a 
new lustre by setting it in the gold of their own wisdom. 
There again they combine single pearls of biblical wisdom 
to a graceful ornament for human life. 

Let us now try to give a few outlines of the ethical 
teachings of the Talmud. In the first place, concerning 
Man as a Moral Being. 

In accordance with the teaching of the Bible, the rab- 
bis duly emphasize man's dignity as a being created in the 
likeness of God. 1 By this likeness of God they understand 
the spiritual being within us, that is endowed with intel- 
lectual and moral capacities. The higher desires and inspi- 
rations which spring from this spiritual being in man, are 
called Yetzer tob, the good inclination; but the lower appe- 
tites and desires which rise from our physical nature and 
which we share with the animal creation, are termed Yetzer 
ha-ra. the inclination to evil. 2 Not that these sensuous de- 
sires are absolutely evil; for they, too, have been implant- 
ed in man for good purposes. Without them man could 
not exist, he would not cultivate and populate this 
earth 3 , cr, as a Talmudical legend runs: Once, some 
overpious people wanted to pray to God that they 
might be able to destroy the Yetzer ha-ra, but a war- 
ning voice was heard, saying: "Beware, lest you destroy 
this world !"* Evil are those lower desires only in that 

1 Aboth T_l, 14: R. Akiba used to say: "How distinguished 
is man, since created in the image of God, and still more dis- 
tinguished by the consciousness of having been created in the 
image of God 1" 

2 Mishna Berachoth IX, 5: y-| "i¥*31 31tD 1^3 THV "OBQ 

3 Midrash R. Bereshith IX: 'im in"!T ^W JH "W fit 1ND TIB rum 

4 Yoma 69b: .KD^y K^3 .T^> wbop *K"T Wl 



2 TO Outlines of Talmudical Ethics. 

they, if unrestrained, easily mislead man to live contrary 
to the demands and aspirations of his divine nature. Hence 
the constant struggle in man between the two inclinations. 1 
He who submits his evil inclination to the control of his 
higher aims and desires, is virtuous and righteous. "The 
righteous are governed by the Yetzer tob, but the wicked 
by the Yetzer ha-ra. % "The righteous have their desires in 
their power, but the wicked are in the power of their 
desires." 3 

Free-will. 

Man's free will is emphasized in the following sentences: 
"Everything is ordained by God's providence, but freedom 
of choice is given to man." 4 "Everything is foreordained 
by heaven, except the fear of heaven" 5 or, as another 
sage puts it: Whether man be strong or weak, rich or poor, 
wise or foolish depends mostly on circumstances that 
surround him from the time of his birth, but whether man 
be good or bad, righteous or wicked, depends upon his own 
free will. 6 

God's Will, the Ground of Man's Duties. 

The ground of our duties, as presented to us by the 
Talmudical as well as the biblical teachings, is that it is 
the will of God. His will is the supreme rule of our being. 
"Do His will as thy own will, submit thy will to His 
will". 7 "Be bold as a leopard, light as an eagle, swift 
as a roe, and strong as a lion, to do the will of thy Father, 
who is in heaven". 8 

Man Accountable to God for his Conduct. 

Of man's responsibility for the conduct of his life, we 



1 Kiddushin 30b: DV 5)33 vby EHnriD D1K b& TOP. Berachoth 5b: 

,inn it bv mo -w dik ror cbwb 

a Berachoth 61b. 3 Midrash Bereshith XXXIII. 
* Aboth III, 15. 6 Berachoth 33a. • Nidda 16b. 
1 Aboth H, 4. • Ibid. V, 20. 



Outlines of Talmudical Ethics. 271 

are forcibly reminded by numerous sentences, as: "Consider 
three things, and thou wilt never fall into sin; remember 
that there is above thee an all-seeing eye, an all hearing 
ear, and a record of all thy actions". 1 And again, "Con- 
sider three things, and thou wilt never sin; remember whence 
thou comest, whither thou goest, and before whom thou wilt 
have to render account for thy doings." 2 

Higher Motives in Performing our Duties. 

Although happiness here and hereafter is promised as 
reward for fulfillment, and punishment threatened for neglect 
of duty, still we are reminded not to be guided by the con- 
sideration of reward and punishment, but rather by love 
and obedience to God, and by love to that which is good 
and noble. "Be not like servants, who serve their master 
for the sake of reward." 3 "Whatever thou doest, let it 
be done in the name of heaven" 4 (that is, for its own 
sake). 

Duty of Self-Preservation and Self-cultivation. 

As a leading rule of the duties of self-preservation and 
self-cultivation, and, at the same time, as a warning against 
selfishness, we have Hillel's sentence: "If I do not care 
for myself, who will do it for me ? and if I care only for 
myself, what am I ?" 5 

The duty of acquiring knowledge, especially knowledge of 
the divine Law (Thora) which gives us a clearer insight in 
God's will to man, is most emphatically enjoined in nume- 
rous sentences: "Without knowledge there is no true moral- 
ity and piety." 8 "Be eager to acquire knowledge, it does 
not come to thee by inheritance". 7 "The more knowledge, 
the more spiritual life.'" "If thou hast acquired knowledge, 
what doest thou lack ? but if thou lackest knowledge, what 



1 Ibid. II, 1. 3 Ibid. Ill, 1. 

3 Aboth I, 3. 4 Ibid. II, 12. • Ibid. I, 14. 

• Ibid. II, 5. 7 Ibid. II, 12, 8 Ibid. II, 7. 



272 Outlines op Talmudical Ethics. 

hast thou acquired ?'" But we are also reminded that even 
the highest knowledge is of no value, as long as it does 
not influence our moral life. 'The ultimate end of all 
knowledge and wisdom is man's inner purification and the 
performance of good and noble deeds." 2 "He whose know- 
ledge is great without influencing his moral life, is compared 
to a tree that has many branches, but few and weak roots; 
a storm cometh and overt urneth it." 3 

Labor. 

Next to the duty of acquiring knowledge, that of indust- 
rious labor and useful activity is strongly enjoined. It is 
well known that among the ancient nations in general, 
manual labor was regarded as degrading the «free citizen. 
Even the greatest philosophers of antiquity, a Plato and 
Aristotle, could not free themselves of this deprecating view 
of labor. 4 How different was the view of the Talmudic sages 
in this respect ! They say: "Love labor, and hate to be a 
lord." 5 "Great is the dignity of labor; it honors man."« 
"Beautiful is the intellectual occupation, if combined with 
some practical work." 7 "He who does not teach his son a 
handicraft trade, neglects his parental duty." 8 "He who lives 
on the toil of his hands, is greater than he who indulges 
in idle piety."" • 

In accordance with these teachings, some of the most 
prominent sages of the Talmud are known to have made 
their living, , by various kinds of handicraft and trade. 
Cardinal Duties in Relation to Fellow-men. 

Regarding man's relation to fellow-men, the rabbis 
consider justice, truthfulness, peaceableness and charity as 
cardinal duties. They say, "The world (human society) 
rests on three things — on justice, on truth and on peace." 10 



» Midrash Levit. I: n\3p H£ mon njH ,fllDn nc mp HJH 

2 Berachoth 17a. 3 Aboth III, 17. 

* Arist. Polit. VIII, 3. 6 Aboth 1, 10. 6 Gittin 67a; Nedarim 49a. 

7 Aboth II, 2. 8 Kiddushin 29a. 9 Berachoth 8a. 

10 Aboth I, 18. 



Outlines op Talmudical Ethics. 273 

Justice. 

The principle of justice in the moral sense is expressed 
in the following rules: "Thy neighbor's property must be 
as sacred to thee, as thine own." 1 "Thy neighbor's honor 
must be as dear to thee, as thine own." 2 Hereto belongs 
also the golden rule of Hillel: " Whatever would be hateful 
to thee, do not to thy neighbor." 3 

Truth and Truthfulness. 

The sacredness of truth and truthfulness is expressed in 
the sentence: "Truth k the signet of God, the Most Holy." 4 
"Let thy yea be in truth, and thy nay be in truth." 6 
"Truth lasts forever, but falsehood must vanish." 8 

Admonitions concerning faithfulness and fidelity to given 
promises are: "Promise little and do much." 7 "To be faith- 
less to a given promise is as sinful as idolatry." 8 "To break 
a verbal engagement, though legally not binding, is a mor- 
al wrong." 9 Of the numerous warnings against any kind 
of deceit, the following may be mentioned: "It is sinful to 
deceive any man, be he even a heathen." 10 "Deception in 
words is as great a sin as deception in money matters." 11 
When, says the Talmud, the immortal soul will be called to 
account before the divine tribunal, the first question will 
be, "hast thou been honest and faithful in all thy dealings 
with thy fellow-men ?" 12 

Peacefulness. 

Peace and harmony in domestic life and social inter- 
course as well as in public affairs are considered by the 
Talmudic sages as the first condition of human welfare and 
happiness, or as they express it: "Peace is the vessel in 
which all God's blessings are presented to us and preserved 



1 Ibid. II, 12. 2 Ibid. II, 10. 3 Sabbath 30a. 
* Sabbath 45a. 5 B. Metzia 45a.. 6 Sabbath 104a. 7 Aboth I, 15. 
8 Sanhedrin 92a. 9 B. Metzia 48a. 10 Chullin 94a. n B. Metzia 58b, 
12 Sabbath 28b. 



274 Outlines of Talmudical Ethics. 

by us." 1 "Be a disciple of Aaron, loving peace, and pur- 
suing peace." 2 To make peace between those in disharmony 
is regarded as one of the most meritorious works that 
secure happiness and bliss here and hereafter. 3 

As virtues leading to peace, those of mildness and 
meekness, of gentleness and placidity are highly praised 
and recommended. "Be not easily moved to anger" 4 "Be 
humble to thy superior, affable to thy inferior, and meet 
every man with friendliness." 6 "He who is slow to anger, and 
easily pacified, is truly pious and virtuous." 6 "Man, be ever 
soft and pliant like a reed, and not hard and unbending like 
the cedar." 7 "Those who, when offended, do not give offence, 
when hearing slighting remarks, do not retaliate — they are 
the friends of God, they shall shine forth like the sun in 
its glory." 8 

Charity. 

The last of the principal duties to fellow-men is charity, 
which begins where justice leaves off. Prof. Steinthal in his 
work on General Ethics, remarks, that among the cardinal virt- 
ues of the ancient philosophers, we look in vain for the idea 
of love and charity, whereas in the teachings of the Bible, we 
generally find the idea of love, mercy and charity closely con- 
nected with that of justice. 9 And we may add, as in the Bible 
so also in the Talmud, where charity is considered as the highest 
degree on the scale of duties and virtues. It is one of the main 
pillars on which the welfare of the human world rests. 10 

The duty of charity (Gemilath Chesed) extends farther 
than to mere almsgiving (Tzedaka). ' 'Almsgiving is practiced 
by means of money, but charity also by personal services and 
by words of advice, symphaty and encouragement. Alms- 
giving is a duty towards the poor only, but charity towards 



1 Mishna Oketzin III, 12. 2 Aboth I, 12. 

3 Mishna Peah I, 1. 4 Aboth II, 10. 6 Ibid. Ill, 12. 6 Ibid. V,U 

7 Taanith 20b. b Yoma 23; Gittin 3(>b. 

• Allgemeine Ethik. p. 108. 10 Aboth I, 2. 



Outlines op Talmudical Ethics, 275 

the rich as well as the poor, nay, even towards the dead 
(by taking care of their decent burial)" 1 

By works of charity man proves to be a true image of God 
whose atributes are love, kindness and mercy. 2 "He who 
turns away from works of love and charity turns away from 
God". 3 "The works of charity have more value than sacrifices; 
they are equal to the performance of all religious duties." 4 

Concerning the proper way of practicing this virtue, the 
Talmnd has many beautiful sentences, as: "The merit of cha- 
ritable works is in proportion to the love with which they 
are practiced." 5 "Blessed is he who gives from his substance 
to the poor, twice blessed he who accompanies his gift with 
kind, comforting words". 6 "The noblest of all charities is en- 
abling the poor to earn a livelihood". 7 He who is unable to 
give much, shall not withhold his little mite, for ' 'as a garment 
is made up of single threads, so every single gift contributes 
to accomplish a great work of charity". 8 

Duties concerning Special Relations. 

Besides these principal duties in relation to fellow- men in 
general, the Talmud treats also very elaborately of duties con- 
cerning the various relations of life. Not intending to enter 
here into all details, we shall restrict ourselves to some of its 
ethical teachings in reference to the domestic relations, and 
regarding the relation to the country and the community. 

The Conjugal Relation. 

"First build a house and plant a vineyard (i. e., provide 
for the means of the household), and then take a wife". 9 "Let 
youth and old age not be joined in marriage, lest the purity 
and peace of domesticlife be disturbed" 10 "A man's home means 



1 Succah 49b. 

2 Sotah 14a. 3 Kethuboth 61a. 4 Succah 49a; B. Bathra 9a. 

6 Succah 49a. 6 B. Bathra 9b. 7 Sabbath 63a. 8 B. Bathra 10b, 
9 Sotah 44a. 10 Sanhedrin 76a. 



276 Outlines of Talmudical Ethics. 

his wife."i "Let a man be careful to honor his wife, for he 
owes to her alone all the blessings of his house". a "If thy 
wife is small, bend down to her, to take counsel from her". 1 
"Who is rich ? He who has a noble wife." 4 "A man should be 
careful lest he afflict his wife, for God counts her tears." 6 "If 
in anger the one hand removed thy wife or thy child, let the 
other hand again bring them back to thy heart." 6 "He who 
loves his wife as his own self, and honors her more than 
himself, and he who educates his children in the right way, 
to him applies the divine promise : Thou shalt know that 
there is peace in thy tent." 7 "Tears are shed on God's altar 
for the one who forsakes the wife of his youth." 8 "He who 
divorces his wife, is hated before God". 9 

Parents and Children. 

"Parental love should be impartial, one child must not be 
preferred to the other". 10 "It is a fathers duty not only to 
provide for his minor children, but also to take care of their 
instruction, and to teach his son a trade and whatever is ne- 
cessary for his future welfare". 11 "The honor and reverence 
due to parents are equal to the honor and reverence due to 
God". 12 "Where children honor their parents, there Goddwels, 
there He is honored" 13 . 

Country and Community. 

Regarding duties to the country and the community, the 
Rabbis teach: "The law of the country is as sacred and bind- 
ing as God's law". 14 "Pray for the welfare of the government; 
without respect for the government, men would swallow each 
other". 15 "Do not isolate thyself from the community and 
its interests". 16 "It is sinful to deceive the government regard- 



1 Yoma 2a. 2 B. Metzia 59a. 3 Ibid. 4 Sabbath 25b. 
6 B. Metzia 59a. 8 Sota 47a. 7 Yebamoth 62b. 8 Gittin 90b. 
9 Ibid. ,0 Sabbath 10b. 1J Kiddushin 29a. » 2 Ibid 29b. 
13 Ibid 30a. " Gittin 10b; Nedarim 28a; B. Kamma 113a; B. 
Bathra 54b. 16 A both III, 2. » fc Ibid II, 4. 



Outlines of Talmudical Ethics. 277 

ing taxes and duties". 1 "Do not aspire for public offices" 2 ; 
"but where there are no men, try thou to be the man". 3 
"Those who work for the community shall do it without self- 
ishness, but with the pure intention to promote its wel- 
fare". 4 

General Characteristics. 

To these short outlines of Talmudical ethics let us add 
only a few general remarks. Being essentially a development of 
the sublime ethical principles and teachings of the Bible, the 
Talmudical ethics retains the general characteristics of that 
origin. 

It teaches nothing that is against human nature, nothing 
that is incompatible with the existence and welfare of human 
society. It is free from the extreme excess and austerity to 
which the lofty ideas of religion and morality were carried 
by the theories and practices of some sects inside and outside 
of Judaism. 

Nay, many Talmudical maxims and sayings are evidently 
directed against such austerities and extravagances. Thus 
they warn against the monastic idea of obtaining closer 
communion with God by fleeing from human society and 
by seclusion from temporal concerns of life : "Do not sepa- 
rate thyself from society." 5 "Man's thoughts and ways shall 
always be in contact and sympathy with fellow-men." 6 "No 
one shall depart from the general customs and manners." 7 
"Better is he who lives on the toil of his hand, than he who 
indulges in idle piety." 8 

They strongly discountenance the idea of celibacy, which 
the Essenes, and later, some orders of the Church regarded 
as a superior state of perfection. The rabbis say: "He who 
lives without a wife is no perfect man." 9 "To be unmarried 

1 Pesachim 112b: DDOH |» "]»¥]/ man btfl a l so B. Kamma 113a 

D3on tik nnan^iiDK. 

2 Aboth I, 10. 3 Ibid. II, 5. 4 Ibid. II, 2. 

» Aboth II, 4. 6 Kethuboth 11a. 7 B. Metzia 86b. 
8 Berachot 8b. 9 Yebamoth 63a. 



278 Outlines of Talmudical Ethics. 

is to live without joy, without blessing, without kindness, 
without religion aud without peace." 1 "As soon as man mar- 
ries, his sins decrease." 2 

While, on the one hand, they warn against too much 
indulgence in pleasures and in the gratification of bodily 
appetites and against the insatiable pursuit of earthly goods 
and riches, as well as against the inordinate desire of honor 
and power, on the other hand, they strongly disapprove the 
ascetic mortification of the body and abstinence from en- 
joyment, and the cynic contempt of all luxuries that beau- 
tify life. They say : ' 'God's commandments are intended to 
enhance the value and enjoyment of life, but not to mar it 
and make it gloomy." 3 "If thou hast the means, enjoy life's 
innocent pleasures." 1 "He who denies himself the use of wine 
is a sinner." 5 "No one is permitted ' to afflict himself by 
unnecessary fasting." 8 "The pious fool, the hypocrite, and 
the pharisaic flagellant are destroyers of human society." 7 
"That which beautifies life and gives it vigor and strength, 
just as riches and honor, is suitable to the pious, and 
agreeable to the world at large." 8 

Finally, one more remark : The Talmud has often been 
accused of being illiberal, as if teaching its duties only for 
Jews towards fellow-believers, but not also towards fellow- 
men in general. This charge is entirely unfounded. It is 
true, and quite natural, that in regard to the ritual and ce- 
remonial law and practice, a distinction between Jew and 
Gentile was made. It is also true, that we occasionally 
meet in the Talmud with an uncharitable utterance against 
the heathen world. But it must be remembered in what 
state of moral corruption and degradation their heathen 
surroundings were, at that time. And this, too, must be 



1 Ibid. 62a. 2 Ibid. 63b. 
3 Yoma 85b: Dm T\)WW tih> Dm *ni. * Erubin 54a: -£ p» DK 
^ 3trn. 6 Taanith 11a. 6 Ibid. 22b. 7 Mishna Sota III, 4. 

8 Baraitha, Aboth VI, 8: D'pHvb HfcO ...TOam IBnyftt mm *ttM 

xhnfa 



Outlines of Talmudical Ethics. 279 

remembered, that such utterances are only made by individ- 
uals who gave vent to their indignation in view of the 
cruel persecutions whose victims they were. As regards 
moral teachings, the Talmud is as broad as humanity. It tea- 
ches duties of man to man without distinction of creed and 
race. In most of the ethical maxims, the terms Adam and 
Beriyot, "man," "fellow- men," are emphatically used; as: "Do 
not despise any man."i "Judge every man from his favorable 
side." 2 "Seek peace, and love fellow-men." 3 "He who is pleas- 
ing to fellow-men is also pleasing to God." 4 "The right way 
for man to choose, is to do that which is honorable in his 
own eyes (i. e., approved by his conscience) and at the same 
time, honorable in the eyes of his fellow- men." 5 In some in- 
stances, the Talmud expressly reminds that the duties of 
justice, veracity, peacefulness and charity are to be fulfilled 
towards the heathen as well as to the Israelites; as: "It is 
sinful to deceive any man, be he even a heathen." 6 It is 
our duty to relieve the poor and needy, to visit the sick 
and bury the dead without distinction of creed and race. " 7 

"Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself" (Lev. XIX, 
18); this is, said R. Akiba, the all embracing principle of 
the divine law. But Azai said, there is another passage 

in Scriptures still more embracing; it is the passage (Gen., 
v, 2): "This is the book of the generations oi man; in the 
day that God created man, he made him in the likeness of 
God." 8 That sage meant to say, this passage is more embracing, 
since it clearly tells us who is our neighbor; not, as it might be 
misunderstood, our friend only, not our fellow-citizen only, not 
our co-religionist only, but since we all descend from a com- 
mon ancestor, since all are created in the image and likeness 
of God, every man, every human being is our brother, our 
neighbor whom we shall love as ourselves. 



' Aboth IV, 3. 2 Ibid. I, 6. 3 Ibid. I, 12. 4 Ibid. Ill, 10. 

5 Ibid. II, 1. 6 Chullin 94a. ' Gittin 61a. 8 Siphra on Lev. XIX, 18. 



280 Outlines of Talmudical Ethics. 

The liberal spirit of Talmudic ethics is mo^t strikingly 
evidenced in the sentence: "The pious and virtuous of all 
nations participate in the eternal bliss," 1 which teaches that 
man's salvation depends not on the acceptance of certain 
articles of belief, nor on certain ceremonial observances, but 
on that which is the ultimate aim of religion, namely, Morality, 
purity of heart and holiness of life. 



1 Tosephta Sanhedrin ch. XIII; Maimonides Yad Hachezaka, 
Teshuba III, 5; Melachim VIII, 11. 



ALPHABETICAL INDEX OF THE PRINCIPAL TANAIM 
AND AMORAIM. 



A. 

Abba (Areca or Aricha) 

Rab. 
Abba Saul . 
Abbahu 
Abaye 
Acha 

Acha of Dif te 
Achai bar Huna 
Ada (or Ide) bar Abin 
Admon 

Akabia b. Mahalalel 
Akiba 
Ame 
Amernar 
Ashe 



B. 
Bar Kappara 
Bar Napacha 

(Jochanan) . 
Ben Azai . 
Ben Bathyra 
Ben Zoma . 
Ben Nanos (Simon) 
Beth Hillel 
Beth Shamai 

C. 

Cahana 
Chanan 
Chanina, chief of the 

Priests . 
Chanina (bar Chama) 
Chisda (or Chasda) 
Chizkia 

Chiya, the great 
(or the Elder) 



Page. 

39.43 
35 
45 
49 
39 
53 
55 
53 
25 
24 
29 
45 
52 
51 
45 



37 

42 
31 
27 
30 
30 

24 



52 
25 

24 
41 
46 
42 

39 



Page. 

Chiya bar Abba . . 45 
D.— H. 

Dime .... 52 

Dosa b. Harchinas . 26 

Elazar b. Azariah . 27 

Elazar b. Jacob . . 35 

Elazar of Modein . 30 

Elazar (b. Shamua) T. 34 

Elazar (b. Padath) Am. 45 

Elazar b. Simon . . 38 

Elazar b. Zadok . 36 

Eliezer (b. Hyrcanos). 26 

Eliezer b. Jacob . 26 

Gamaliel (the Elder) . 24 

Gamaliel II of Jamnia 25 

Gamaliel III. . . 41 

Gebiha ... 52 

Hillel .... 23 

Hillel II 48 

Hoshaya (or Oshaya) . 39 

Huna ... 46 

I. -J. 

Ide bar Abin . . 53 

Ilai .... 32 

Ise b. Judah. . . 39 

Ishmael (b. Elisha) . 28 

Ishmael bar Jose . 39 

Janai (the Elder) . 39 
Jehuda, see Juda. 

Jeremiah Tor Jirmiah) 48 

Jochanan b. Broka . 30 

Jochanan (bar Napacha). 42 

Jochanan b. Nuri . 29 

Jochanan, theSandelar 84 

Jochanan b. Zaccai . 24 

Jonah .... 48 

Jonathan (the Elder) . 39* 



282 



Index of Principal Tanaim and Amoraim. 





Page. 


Jose (bar Chalafta}, a Tana 


33 


Jose (bar Zabda), Pal. 






Amora . 




48 


Jose, a Babyl. Amora . 




55 


Jose, the Galilean 




30 


Jose b. Juda 




38 


Joseph (bar Chiya) 




49 


Joshua (b. Chanania). 




26 


Joshua b. Korcha 




35 


Joshua b. Levi 




43 


Juda b. Baba 




30 


Juda b. Bathyra . 




27 


Juda Hanasi (= Rabbi) 




37 


Juda II (Nesiah) . 




41 


Juda (b. Ilai) Tana 




32 


Juda (b. Jecheskel), Babyl. 




Amora . 




46 



-M. 



Levi (bar Sissi) . . 43 

Mar bar Rab Ashe . 53 

Maremar (=Mar Jemar) 53 

Mathia b. Charash . 30 

Meir .... 31 

Nachman (bar Jacob) 47 

Nachman b. Isaac . 50 

Nachuni the Median . 25 

Nachum of Gimzo . 27 

Nathan (the Babylonian) 36 

Nechemia ... 35 

Nechunia b. Hakana . 27 



O.— R. 




Oshaya (or Hoshaya) 


39 


Papa 


51 


Papi 


51 


Plimo . 


39 


Rab (=Abba Aricha) 


43 


Raba 


50 



Page. 

Rabba bar Hun a . . 49 

Rabba (bar Nachmani) 49 

Rabba bar bar Chana. 47 
Rabba of Tusfah (or Tospia) 54 

Rabbi (=Juda Hanasi) 37 

Rabbina I and II. . 54 

Rafram bar Papa . 52 

Rafram II. . . 53 
Resh Lakish ( = R. Simon b. 

Lakish) , 42 

S. 

Sama bar Rabba . . 53 

Samuel (Mar) . . 44 

Samuel bar Abbuha . 55 

Saphra .... 45 

Shamai .... 23 

Shela .... 44 

Shesheth- ... 46 

Simai bar Ashe . . 51 

Simlai .... 43 

Simon bar Abba . . 45 

Simon b. Elazar . . 38 

Simon b. Gamaliel I. 24 

Simon b. Gamaliel II. 35 

Simon (ben Jochai) . 33 

Simon b. Lakish . . 42 

Simon ben Nanos. . 30 
Symmachos (or Symchos) 37 

T.— Z. 



Tarphon (or, Tryphon) 


28 


Ukba(Mar) . 


44 


Ulla (bar Ishmael) 


47 


Zadok (Tzadokj 


26 


Zebid 


52 


Zera (Zeira) . 


46 


Zutra (MarJ . 


62 



INDEX OF EXPLAINED TECHNICAL TERMS AND 
PHRASES. 



Page. 




Page. 




217.232 . 


. vb&np "KD3 




.« 


210 


Nrnmn 


256 


. nana 


157 


as p:a 


204 


. N"n« 


159 


rana *jpd aa pa 


244 


«E>bn iK 


244 


. tnn 


252 


Nob^a m»K \^ 


244 


rrrio '•ya 


230 


-oik <an nonx ^ 


202 


. Nobt^a 


244 


inb kwk 


253 


loan \Knb KD^a 


239 


vra lb^QN *an *k 


210 


. mcna 


259 


245 


nctrs -nn *yan "ina 


259 


ti" 1 rx *kd on 'N 


227 


. rr»~i xp toa:iK Niaa 


242 


w ...">« 


223 


NBU 


217 


Yrwa Ka^K 


143 


.nit? rntt 


229 


. tdjh xa^N 


249 


♦ Tea 


260.204.24 


tO . . KD^N 


148 


....pnoa 


257 


KD'D SD'K 


252 


n-m >m 


227 


...km ^k 


251 


On NDTI &6 W 


135 


pnn jo pew p« 


252 


-jnyn apbD ^t 


218 


. "pB^X 


225 


. liTinn n»*n 


256 


.NianDD tos 1 ** 


250 


. . .7 k*dvi 


228 


rraTTk 

KD S X ttbtf 


174 


irjyD nnbn ian 


240 


132 


pn ,in 


209 


181 


. Kinxa 'pixi njo ;n 


252 


. d"k> wb tfbx 
rr-iob sa^b wn» s*bx 


254 


•Tm 


257 


134 


. "iai pnn p sab vn 


246 


. KrrmnD Nbtf 
nnyD xbs 


249 


. xpn 


260 


197 


. nayn 


205 


. soba 


247.252 


.nM KpH 


213 




288 


. nb n«p »kd nb n«pn 


185 


118 


sm 


223 


ID -IOK 






229 


K3^n ^J pK SJN 




.n 


210 


-pa*** 


213 

226 


nby ioriK xn 


148 

224.225 


tona 






229 


s dj -oik 


238 


."•nd ^xn 






258 i 


n\sna «m arrxna xn 




.i-n 


203.257 


. ^» Nil 




132 * 


pnn p xan 


197 


♦ nayna 


257 


. son ^n *a -i»fcn Kin 


200.242 . 


jrpDy *K»a 



284 



Index of Technical Terms and Phrases. 



Page. 




Page. 




240 
213 
259 


ND'H '31 

.. .Nin n&i 


242 
211 
238 


P"1S01 37110 Kin 

nj'on nin 

• H3 »in 

• romn 
. W"n .. . ij"n 


218 


..b n*b rr^i 


238 


218 


• NH3 'oj Jibsbi 


207.208 


225 


. Dl^O m ItDDl 


216 


. NDpwnirn 


227 


. '3n "ION '01 


200.242 


'o-i '3'n 
»* p'poy 'N03 Kan 


247 


NID'H NJOl 


152.250 


218 


'a isdi 


200.241.2, 


212 


. 'ansi 


207 


rop Nmai N3n 


215.222 


. VlWti 


198 


ioi:nn N3n 


147 


♦ '131 fnan asn 


258 


ND^n '3H 


239 


. mi 


247.252 


N-onoo 'oj 'an 


213 


• (K^PDioim 
• Nano rb 7i"o N;ni 


209 


ionp 'an 


201 


56 


. nabn 


238.256 


Niaoni 


123 


'J'DO npob nabn 




.'»— T 


243 


ioni jno!? Nrv:n 






160 


tnas? nipn nvn 


206 


moiN hnt 


212.251 


...onnnoi Nn^n 


157 


a«n» n? 


199 


noN ann 


147 


hn'3 it m'c nyi it 


258 


. ...Nan ...ann 


196 


it "iDib -p* |'ni it 


202 


'Np ann 


235 


ion ini ion in 






182 


pn "tfn 




.1 


209 214 . 
193.247 . 
206.250 . 


. NiDn'onidn 

DVD 
...1 NDyD 


233 
254 
254 


• I.TDyO^VlTNl 

• •moN'Ni 

• "jnyn np^d 'ni 


137 


p» n'3i' - 


231 


TTN1 

♦ NO'NI 

•N07VN1 

'NO N^NI 


192 


D'a-ii TIT 


260 


143 
246 


eniaon jo Dino tj^ 
uai mob' 


225 

259 


158 


... NX' 


213 


'NON1 




3-a 


254 


njtn dni 


215 
250 
232 
163 
164 
166 
167 


• ...|N31 ... |N2 

. ...'aa ina^NTj 
'^b n!j ...Na'n ba 

. . fe 

OIQlfe 
. ^31D-|Q1^3 
•Npn NOP Nfe 


225 
240 
245 
205 
260 
214 
205 
233 


ro 'ioni 

lONn DNI 
101? NVOfl DNI 

. Npim 

. Noim 

. nb»-i moNni 

...PNim 

..i .Tmi3 NnaSni 


256 
219 


•T'5> 'b!>3 

. nWN¥»riK>a 


221 

lb2 


. N'jnni ,pnm 
pn iTni 



Index of Technical Terms and Phrases. 



285 



Page. 




Page. 




159 


wx» no 


235 


'K:na 


242 


I^dj no 


224 


pON n:> 


218 


. ntaw nzbrnn 


160 


. "i3i nr 'in xb 


151 


. nxm 


226 


lOHN BHTM *#> 


191.217 . 


■ npibno 


196 


IT P\X IT vb 


260 


'TO KITS '0 


196 


lONp N*]D'0 N^> 


244 


pnoN *o 


260 


i,nyi Npbo n^ 


258 


N'"IN 'TO 


200.210.24 


J N3T* xb 


250 


mm to 


239 


iwp n^ 


258 


. '01 'O 


224 


ia» n^ 


224 


. NionD 


194 


'no 'ihnS 


259 


. Nn'j '0 


219 


T.D'n nS 


256 


.mno 'O 


233 


n'oyob 


206.249 . 


feo 


203.217.21 


3 . . no'|) 


132 


note 


234 


'NJH3 NO'b 


247 


. n^j NroN wo 


234 


TVb N"yDO NO'*> 


200 


. fyn ^n n:o 


197 


nb'nnsb 


24? 


Nio'n n:o 


199 


Mnabn 'no5> 


3Sb 


. n'ospisi p 


244 


nro Nps: 'no*> 


195 


'oiyob wjo 


218 


Nio'ob 


203 


^no 'jo 


195 


'NO 'BiyEft 


200 


' . ASD 


200.243 


D&& 


201.238 . 


£« £« 






255 


rr? rw 




.0 


247.252 . 


Nisnoo 


IIS 


'NO 


193 


. npyo 


24S 


ID'O^ N3'N 'NO 


214 


. -nnob n&yyo 


232 


liT'J'3 'NO 


192 


Nnyso 


101 


^oyo 'no 


193 


jnoi nk>o 


249 


**6 'NO 


222.241 . 


. '3'JTO ,3'MO 


199 


220 


. jn':no Nn':no 


199 


yoe>o 'NO 


255 


nb n'pno 


199.228 


lONp 'NO 






199.210 


. i^yo^op'^o 




y— J 


142 


"l3Dp 'N£ 


132 


. pn 


208 


. N3n*lNJI5"N» 


247 


. p« nro 


213.217 . 


• NP'INJP'NO 


234 


vina no'j 


255 


n3 epao 


249 


. p'opa 


122 


NTI'TNIO 


193.248 . 


. N13D 


123 


• nno 


132 


. |'15]1D 


118 


nabm maw Brno 


243 


. C|1D SpD 


244 


mo 


233 


. nwd ,yi'D 


210 


NO'nn ino 


192 


NS'D 


157 


invo ...no 



286 



Index of Technical Terms and Phrases. 



Page. 




Page. 




206.249 . 


ITriD JJDt? 


211 


rrb KansYK kb^d 


206 


mvo nvnv 


209.238 . 


inm np^d 


224 . NnriVBP Kny£Gj> 


210 


WDK -jnyn xp^D 


241 


. R*ITO 


177 


. pUDD 


241 


Np s m tnrt? 


191 


DHD 


160 inKD CTNan D^VD W 


217 


- .m^b vh ;xa iy 


175 t"nt D^naon D^aina ^t? 


132 


wn a-ip-y 


252 


tbs? 






216 


rrb ->»xp tbb> 




.V- JD 


193.261 . 


anm «bp&y 


242 


. KplTE 


233 


yov «n 


136.251 




214 


. &nan 


193 


247 


jnn 


255 


ins 


132 


p n^nn 


242 


(p-iao) pis 


228.233.241.254 . 


*narn 


245 


•tnn ana bi^q 


243 


. ..a v\tt\ 


117 


topi rrB&yB/D&yB 


245 


ipvi 


209 


0b) Kt3"CB 


239 


• p-cn 
. nrrian 


210 


238 


207 


..a D^Di ..a nna 


220.221 . 


*on 


160 


. patr ropn nv 


220 


fpn) Nia njh 


211 


tons 


202 


^p «a\n ton 


212 


^anv 


195 


n"&jn ton 


209 


^ni p'DB NP 


191 


NDp &un 


239 


-iBim ^p 


235.257 . 


wn ^:n 


130 


222 


pa-run 


124.183 


bijpidi *m 


221 


«^n 


240 


. nwi 


222.229 . 


. ■•an ^j N^n 


207 


. ux 


222.235 . 


rrma fcnn 


192 


. N&yn 


221 


Kin ^n 


258 


,..kb*di - KB>n 


220.228 . 


won 




jn— .w 


222 


. Y'm r6 won 


241.257 


(onn) Nan *jkb> 


220 


(onn) pn 


246 


n^ wbp 


236 


. D^nDn 


246 


ana ir6t? 



APPENDIX. 



KEY TO THE ABBREVIATIONS USED IN THE TALMUD 
AND ITS COMMENTARIES. 



ovyna 


.y"« 


.N 




33 bv *|K 


.yyx 


*r»N IN 0r3K D113N 


N"N 


*b by pjn 


."B"yN 


1B>BN *N .niON *K 


ii 


P^b^n 


3"ByN 


B^N n^N 


ii 


*an i^bn 


.n"BN 


NO^KO H10N S N 


•3"NN 


iS'BN 


."•BN 


p DN N^N 


3"NN 


in* wk 


.S'N 


(13) 13 PN O-TUn N3 S N 


•3"N 


"iB"6 in* p« 


.Wn 


NOW n^3 W 


• N"3N 


Kip ION 


.p"N 


pi JV3 3N 


.1"3N 


"•21 ION 


.l"N 


nnry p iry^N 


.y"3N 


on wm ion 


.n"iN 


nONI N3'N 


♦1"N 


(in Tosaphoth) 




p&j>Nin DIN . 


IiY'IK 


TE£> TIN .^N10E> ION 


.fc?"N 


1311N 


.'UN 


10NH DN 


.n"« 


•»3n l^BN .^31 W 


.n"N 


.10^ Nvon DN 


i'TlN 


D^yn mow 


11 






•"oj nn pn 


.JMN 


.3 




DN13N 


♦N1"N 






inNI UN 


.N1"N 


din 'J3 3N p» 


• N"3 


D^iyn niow 


.y",HN 


131 iniN2 
^KIP 1 pN3 


.1"N3 
.'"N3 


P.DJ bai n 
mnN 


.j"in 

.T"N 


'•" , ' nnN iii3 

rrn bya .aim N33 

3^n3 iea .run 13 13 

pi n\n 

DniON nnai no3 


.3*3 
.n"33 

.l"3 
•N"13 


n? in« 

13 UN 
PNlB" piN 

Nowrvya 1 **^, 


.n"N 

.T"nN 

.3"nN 

• N'^N 

s^'ya^N 


Knpon rpa .W>n rv3 


•n"3 


Nin iii3 .n s 3n bin 


'' 


p DN 


.3 /y N 


onoiN bbn nn 


.N".13 * 


ni>rtan nDJ3 nw« 


0"n3N 


nibna nw^na 


0M3 


JN3 3713 pN 


O y/ 3N 


(in Tosaphoth) 




NO^W ^13 N 


.y"3N 


nDJ3i nn 


.3",13 


(into frf> ion 


•V'N 


pron n3i3 


.0".13 


(into n^ n^ -no^ w 


// 


crnon nn 


.Y'on3 


lO^ob N3>N 


// 


tsnpon nn . 


p"0.13 


m NO^n n5? W 


..T'n^N 


D11 1K>3 


.l"3 


10 ION 


.0"N 


D^rpbm.auibjn 


.n"a 


*nn |o i3N 


.n*DN 


iyio bw "torn . 


o'^na 


D^yn ibo um^n 


.n"0N 


DipO 5>33 


•0"33 


s OJ W 


J"N 



288 



Key to Abbreviations in the Talmud. 



k^ek mm 


.K"m 


*3nn&3 • 


n"N^a 


pn aim 


.n"m 


KJPVO K33 


.0*3 


mt> mm 


.b"m 


wro n»3 


.D"D3 


-i»^ no mm 


.Wm 


nuiTD ^d sin 


" 


nw mm 


.»'<m 


pO P"»-J3 


■r'n 


no^b ^d mm 


.y»m 


nwi »nroa 


•T'Da 


n»«p ^m 


^m 


non Syn 


•n"ya 


k»5>v ibian 


.y'on 


(in Tosaph.) DK>n n*lTy3 


.n"y3 


nw»» 'an 


.d*i 


mn obiya 


•T"ny3 


"iojn jam 


.T'»1 


inna bya 


.3*03 


XDyE ^HDT 


D"noi 


na^n 


•a"y3 


DipD ^301 


•D"»n 


n&nx oa n-ju 


.N"S3 


T1WB3 W 


o"n 


onm ''JD31 anru »jaa o"B3i :"a3 


n\r» span 


•E"jn 


NOp K33 


•P"3 


dosid nan 


.d'O 


^nd^ no 


<V"2 


nnna bin 


•a"yn 


onoiN \SDK> no 


■ N"S2>3 


D"jq io byn 


.s"ayn 


.'I DEO 


.n"^a 


A K^pn 


•Wn 


.3 




nnyn sp;>D xpi 


.Y'Dpn 






nmn p ,nmn im 


.ri"n 


(in Rashi) wnnx KDYJ 


.N": 


.p3i wm 


.mn 


p -it: 


.T'3 






npjn tj 


o*™ 


.n 




moa 


•T": 


xms mn 


♦K"n 


mp mnj 

(in Marginal Q& nT DJ 




nnoys N3n 


•ya'on 


Notes) 

anon ni^ 




sin nrn ssnpn 


.n'on 


.n"a 


poDyKm Kan 


•y'on 


noma ,kdt:i 


.*»a 


NJ11J ^n 


.yn 






(in Rashi) p*D"lJI "OH 


u 


P DJ 


•a": 


novnma^n 


II 


S"IDJ 


• '03 


w OM 


•n"n 


nioy ^ .py p 


.y y/ j 


Kin on .pn sin 


.n"n 


dwb 'j 


•a": 


Tnan sin ton 


.n"nn 


non: .Dn: 


"0 


^d mn 


.»"in 


msp HTM 


.B^J 


nton 


.?"n 






n»nj }D?n 


,j"?n 


.1 




Noya *«n 


.B"n 


-ins nan 


.N"n 


nrb mn 


•b"n 


ntj>ax w 


.N"Nn 


nabn 


.6n 


p vh Dsn 


o'^Nn 


-hd^ n*S mn 


.Mm 


on xo*n K^Nn.iY'n^n 


>3-do n^ nabn 


»D^n 


i&h svon DNT 


.y'nsn 


**» mn ."^d ^n 


.»"n 


on ix^on .n"i6an 


nsa nxn no n;n 


.K"nD.n 


^nn»n man 


.n"n 


nonA **» mn 


i"»n 


(in Marginal Notes) 





Key to Abbreviations in the Talmud. 



289 



icib v myi 


•Wi 


\oph rv\ b*vh pjn 


// 


my pyi 


.y"jn 


(in Tosaphoth) n^p myi 


•p"jn 


(in Tosaphoth) p">y T"l¥l 


.y"V1 


lb ap"pi 


>pi 


ran? ppi 


•ypi 


Cin Marginal pD3 Q^i 


o*Bn 


Notes) 




.T 

now n? .WK nr 


.K"T 


nt na nr .n? ins nr 


.T"XT 


nra m 


rat 


nn nr 


.t"it 


Dma nn nr 


.j"ro 


na-iab (D3113T) wwt 


i"? 


iwb nr 


n 


was *6k> Dixb pat 


.a"^r 


noia jet 


.nj/'ot 


nr oy nr .nr by nr 


.? ;/ yr 


ainan -iekk> nr 
.n 
-i6xnn 


.n'^r 


.a /y n 


nyiDn bin 


.Dn"n 


ubw Dn 


.vn 


p&6 mnn 


A*in 


nyio b&y ibin 


.»"B>in 


naiab wna? iroan 


.?"?n 


onoiN D'»an 


.x yy an 


m\"6 bn 


b"n 


p&6 pn 


u 


bbk>b iwn 


.»"n 


^np 'sm *nDn» mon . 


y y mnn 


pw ?sn 


.y'n 


ppi ntoi&j' E5nn | 


•V'BTI 

.p'lpn 


.nyio bv ibin 
.a 
(axa ny&rn) aaa 'd 


•D'^n 


.a /y B 


dv biao 


.'"13B 



i'?y nunc N^vion 


.n yy yon 


m*nn 




*03 '•an 


.y y n 


'»j xan 


a 


^yb anaan 


H u it\ 


nbysb i»wn 


a 


■»^» '•jn 


.»"jn 


aoanDE *»j 'an 


a 


«an obiyn j 


.an yy yn 
.an yy iyn 


nrn obiyn 


.t"myn 


T"»b *an .ipivb s an 


.a"n 


nmj man 


j"an 


ptDpn .ntypn 


.'pn 


-MDNp 'an 


.p"n 


Kin -jro ismpn 


.n /y apn 


nnutna a-in 


.a y/ in 


nniJDia mnaiy am 


.a yy ynn 


."pan* DK>n 


y'wn 



mow W 

k»'k n^ya w 

i»Nn DM1 

DHDnnb'mi 
Sp aroni p"li 

(in Commentaries) 

pn mm 

nw pn Kim 

'b'D urn 

onow D'oam 

noib B"i 

D'BHBD S^l 
1^131 

KD^y i^i 

TDMT1 ?N01 

s an dib>»i 

nao "ipi 

anae> noi 

iron 



•N"N1 

.K"a&tt 

.Y'KI 

.'til 

.11*11 

.p"im 

.n /y ni 

.y y nm 

•D /y :m 

.K"m 

.D /y ^ 

•n /y ai 

.y /y 3^i 

.n y/ »i 

.n /y Di 

• D yy »1 

.^ yy »i 



290 



Key to Abbreviations in the Talmud. 



(dt vr) t nro 
in N¥i;3 

p i»3 .-p i>3 

did ^3 

3roi3 

DipD ^3 

tikve 13 .y»p» p 

l 3 nj^c c]D3 

1DN1 |ND3 

(iidk:b>) 3iri3^ 1D3 
^ nana p 
aoby ^13 

^pbs xb xvbv 'b'o 

D^yB H»3 .^bs s 3 

nvnb T»"iv p 

ki.ib> ^3 .pB> i>3 

T 3D3 

wins KJ^b 

obiyD Dnm im &6 

Kttby ^dS 

pp b &6 

k^o xb 
1»K1 ixob 
ton D^iyb 
it oy perb 

N3? TDiD 
^^B Kb 

toi nvjy *sS ? 

(in Couimentaries) f 

(W) KM xb 

n*w ah 
yin ji^b 

•riOTi xb 



.■"'3 

•3"V3 
.3"3 



.»"3 



.Y'ea 

.y"3 

.s"py3 

•B"3 
.^"5*3 

.K>"3 

.""n3 



0"b 

•D"inb 
•y"3S 
.^"3b 

•1"rf> 

.3"nyb 

•r"yb 

«yb 

•b"yb 

•Y'yBb 
.i":ya} 

■t 

■n"i>b 

.Y'rwb 

W'&b 



iny jr6iBi no 

(in Marg. Notes) 

^0 Koy& 
•iai d niya 

onoiK B" 
(.13) u e» 

PD1W ^ 

main *ip 



Dni33n or 



in3in *fl 

310 DV I 
"JDJ p 

Dnao ur 

DC? pir 

yin is s 

310 1)T 

jdt n5mp u bt»p p 
-pabo fin vr 

DVDS? *T 
1EK> -p3)V 

.3 

1I1K ^3 .DN '3 

inNi in« bs 

blU f.13 

P^Dia 13 

fcOlU 'NPia 

biun j.i3 
nbiun HDJ3 

jOT^D-mbs 

D'-y-lT ^3 



.an'o 

.y"851D 
.0*0 



,3"iT 

•3"nv 

•D"-|.T 
.0'^ 

.:'Mjp s 



♦N"3 

.X"1N3 

0"3 

.r,i3 



.13 

•r"3 



j Name of Joseph Karo's Commentary on the code of Maimonides. 



Key to Abbreviations in the Talmud. 



291 



nyo jnu 


.tt"j 


d*t rbw 


.'"J 


^fjDV'piD^ 


/» 


TypanDJ .royo:no*o 


.b": 


*h ns-o 


n 


nro Nps: 


• 0"j 


d^ pu 


.&": 


.-op kb>u .nap ij 


n 


.D 




•wins N^ID 


.N"D 


nnnx d^sd 


/' 


inyn Kpbo 


/V'D 


nj'idx -jnyn xp^o 


• K"lD 


^nnon Tin spD 


•n"iD 


rnioi -mo 


.0"1D 


pro 


."D 


IT? KTaD 


>D 


(in ^-|J niXO 1DD 


0"OD 


Marginal Notes) 2 ) 




nie>sj p2D 


.y ; D 


fcfpBD pDD .tpDtpD 


.D"D 


P|W 


'>]}0 


P*1D P)1D 


■s"d 


K"ina pi2 t|!D 


♦3"DD 


NOp piD P]1D 


.p">:D 


mih ibd 


•n"D 


nimo p^sn onso 


.d'tid 


.y 




-noy .py 


.'y 


d^n rrnay 


.N"y 


n Tiny 


/; 


noai noa nnx ^y 


.Vaxy 


.'a "noy 


•a"y 


naby 


o"y 


r 1_n ^ y 


.V'y 


own v?y .p«n Dy 


.r/'y 


«an nb)V j 


.a"ny 
.3 "my 



.0 

pnDK *o -K"0 

-itrob frCTtf S N0 •}"«» 

dv myao . ,u yao 

aWl S N0 ."lO&n |KB .Y'JD 

onaiD nano .d"io 

'an di^o .dyi djho .n"» 

pn nro .V'no 

•»^o *jn n:o .o"no 

\td -ino .D"no 

mwi ^asbo .w"r\v 

minnp .n"no 

"1010 .'010 

-13001 npo .o"io 

;noi nk>o " 

(in Marginal hi pno .T"0 
notes) 

p*6 nvino -b"no 

Noyo ^o .o"o 

13D 10 .D"0 

nwy nivo .y"o 

nyi? nyo -Wo 

jopnyio .p"o 

D^m mo .-i"o 

man Kmo " 

DiScyn v^y urn n^o .n"y-io 

ana^ no .wb' \xo .2>"o 

nap ^io .^b> -oto " 

^n dipo .n"po 

D1P0 'IPO 

(nisDim) rnrp mo .n"^o 

min |no .n"o 

jmno ."ono 

J 

rrera ana: *a"j 



x ) Name of annotations to Alfasi's Talmudical compendium by 
R. Joseph b. Chabiba, often referred to in Tosaphoth Yomtov ( Heller). 

2 ) Name ot the rabbinical code by R. Moses of Coucy. It is di- 
vided into pg>y commendatory, and pilfc^ prohibitory laws. 



292 



Key to Abbreviations in the Talmud. 



0"n byi "W 

ropn n 

p3K> m^m* 

nrnb "inv .nab. *pv 

.p<y "p* 

•P 
minn nxnp 

-om bp | 

panb bp 

p yo^B Np 

inyi KpbD *tp 

jvy "pv nvp 

D'Bnp wp 

(in Tosaph.) n^p DVp 

.yap n«np 



31 ."21 

-irybtf '■) .iry^N m 
nnry p -irybx *m 

fcon in in nn 

obiy bw wm 

b^boa pi 

»jin 3"i .pubm pan 

tith rwi 

D'3-in nitn 

,nron m ,K"n *n 
tnon 3"i 
(mabirn) btojn mi 

N3N % 13 K^n '21 

pa-ita m 

yBnir '-i .rrnrp yr\ 

pn^'-i -pnv h 



.n"3* 

•b"v 
.y"x 



.n"np 

.y'P 

.n'"ip 

.b""p 

>P 

•b"BP 

•Y'Dp 

.y"vp 
.e>"P 



.y"3Ki 

.3""l 

.n"33") 

.y'E»3*i 

.j'h 

.n"-i 

.Y'rn 
■ n'n 






nrn o^iy 

m? muy .n? by 

nmn *nnv 

'"rby 

(' apy yy 

3iD dv my 

Sfcib sr ny 

bs by ,;n*3 ny 

in-13 by 

^y:a nay 

ra |sa ny 

mbnai D'333 *i3iy 

iwb i«a ny 

d^b ba by 

b s yb p^y 

ru» by 

my py .nay -ny 

nbbx nniay naiy 

d^db ^any , s b by 

rupn B>«n any 

Knin »ni 3-iy 

d^ ]"y ,nnc any 

p»inn 'any 



.r.ny 

.?"y 

•n"y 

.v"vy 
.3"y 



•T'ay 

•D'nay 

•b"ay 

.a"ay 

b"V 

.»"y 

.y"y 

.*"yy 

■a"y 

.,n"ny 

.n"ny 

•*c"y 

•n"y 



.a 

n&^s .pna 

.'K pna .nns ays 

.'3 pis .trim p-ia 

(in To- onojipn PWB 

saphot referring to Rashi) 

pva 

piDB 
p pDB 

N»p pnaj 

beo^n mn stpb 

(in Tosaphoth) 

an oan B>va 

fin Tosaphoth) 



.'a 

•3"B 

.n"a 



• y DB 

•Y'DB 

.p"B 

.p^B 

n"nfi 

.JV'na 



J ) En Jacob to which sometimes references are made in the 
marginal notes to the Talmud is the name of a collection of all Agadic 
passages of the Talmud. See above p. 76. 

2 ) Frequently occurring in Tosaphoth Yom Tob ( Heller > and 
referring to the Mishna Commentary by R. Obadja Bertinoro. 



Key to Abbreviations in the Talmud. 



293 



niobn = D s -nDn^K> 


.Df'B> 


*K3T p pnv '"\ 


■T"an 


D"H3y nnns? 


.y ; '^ 


*b p y^in^ "\ 


.b"an 


-|ny jnijp 


u 


*ona 3-1 


.a"-i 


D"n mis Tny \rbw 


.n"x yV 


t^pb B>n 


i'*i 


-iryn p« Tny frf?^. 


y"nK y"£> 


VKO '1 


.o"n 


nyi mv -p-iy |n^ 


.i"v y"&? 


}on: 3-i .|ru 'i 


.j"-i 


o-:e>o jpin -p-iy jn^p 


.»"n y"^ 


aa^py h 


.y'n 


bhw 


.'as? 


p-ia Bn .aaa "i 


.a"i 


nana rot? 


.a"K> 


pyot? '-i 


.^"i 


nn^v irbe> 


.v"k> 


-iry^N p pyo^ 'i 


.K"3Kn 


-i»ib iruncr 


.^"mK> 


DH-13N p \\WDW 1J31 


'/ 


ysp mvy -aw dk> 


.e>"b> 


(niaDina) 




-mnw -iok> 


/> 


^nv p pyoe> "i 


s*nsn 


n^an yoifc> 


.n"p 


*>k^o:i p pyos? 'i 


.j/'asn 


.n 




YKO p ^10^ '-I 


■D"3£n 


Ttk K^n 


.x"n 


Cniacina) 




di^pjin Dinn 


/< 


s p™p nob^ U3-i 


s"vn 


3X3 rwn 


.a"n 


niTn ^n-i 


.n"-i 


DTion rrnn 


.n"n 


(niaaina) f an mi 


.n"i 


"|-nn nban 


'> 






ibwi nonn 


•o'ln 


.tr 




roaoin 


.'Din 






*nn \m .aan T»bn 


.n"n 


-i^aa s n&j> 


.N"K^ 


d^k^ niaoin 
mo nv niamn 


*"n 

.o"ti 


13 pX£> 

npyo 13 |w 

p &6 DKB> 


•3"N^ 

..0"3N^ 

•3"W 


D\jna min 


.a"n 


na ^ya^ 


•V"N^ 


Saa ^oiben 


n 


•a"y3^ 


-inn na r.n 


•Van 


a^o-i na^a&y .'•oi ybb> 


.i"^ 


amna a^a: min 


Y'an 


no-o }orn^ 


.yrn^ 


iDib mo^-i 


o'n 


an^n ye? 

maisrni niW 

nr.m W 


.P'Ttt? 


■•an ^o: *nn 

nop Njn 


.n"in 
.p"n 


.n"i^ 


-qd nop wn 
to* n^yn 


.D"pn 
•v"n 


3in -iob> 


.n"o^ 

.3" , ^ 


pm i:n 


.Vn 


n^o yo^ 


.0"2T 


r\2v ainn .yo^ xn 
* na ^ya^ min 


.&y"n 

.a"ya^n 


y-io 3 s 3£> 
Dipo bao^ 


• 0"0^ 


.min mobn 


•n"n 

^ a — ■•» 


TOWS?] 





Typographical Work of k. Ginsberg. 



THE JEWISH LAW 

MARRIAGE i DIVORCE, 

In Ancient and Modern Times, and its Relation 

to the Laws of the State, 

BY M. MIELZINER, PH. D., 

PROFESSOR HEBREW UNION COLLEGE, CINCINNATI, O. 

Cloth Binding, - Price, $2.00. 

'Dr. Mielziner's book offers completely and scientifically, 
perfectly objective and impartial, the entire matter in the title 
page. The rich and instructive material of the book is en- 
hanced, not only by the author's steady references to non- 
Jewish legislations on this subject, but also by his historical 
tact in pointing out all modern resolves and views on the most 
important points of his researches, which gives to the book an 
additional value, as that material was never compiled sepa- 
rately. In form and style the book may be called a success. 
It is simple and perspicuous in style, perfectly intelligible to 
the ordinary reader, concise and strictly logical in construct- 
ion, arrangement and definition." 

This work has received the highest encomiums from the 
LEGAL, RELIGIOUS and SECULAR PRESS 
in this country as well as abroad. 

SLAVERY AMONG HKBRHWS. 

BY M. MIELZINER, PH. D., PROFESSOR AT THE H U. C. 

This treatise on an important and very interesting branch of 
Biblical Archaeology was published in 1859, at Copenhagen and Leip- 
zig, under the title, " Die Verha?ltnisse der Sklaven bei den alten 
Hebrseern, nach biblischen und talmudischen Quellen dargestellt." 
The little work attracted a great deal of attention in Germany, and 
was very favorably received by eminent scholars. It has since been 
quoted in numerous works on the different branches of Biblical Liter- 
ature and Antiquities, among others, in Oehler's Theology of the Old 
Testament, and especially in Herbert Spencer's Descriptive Sociology 
(No. 7). By request of some American scholars and theologians, the 
late Professor H. I. Schmidt, of Columbia College, New York, fur- 
nished an English translation, which was published in the Gettysburg 
Evangelical Review, vol. xiii. No. li. • 

As both the original German edition and the English translation 
thereof are out of print, we republished Prof. Schmidt's translation, 
in a somewhat revised edition. Price 25 Cts. 

THE BLOCH PUBLISHING AND PRINTING CO., 

CINCINNATI, O. 
Bloch & Co., 

Chicago. III. 



